fcibrarp  of  Che  Cheolocjiccd  £min<xvy 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


PRESENTED  BY 

The  Estate  of  the 
t>— ~  JnVm  Bi  Wiedirarer 
BL  2775  .H37  1893 
Harden,  William  Dearing. 
An  inquiry  into  the  truth  o 
dogmatic  Christianity 


JUN   2    1948 


AN    INQUIRY   INTO 


THE  TRUTH  OF   DOGMATIC 
CHRISTIANITY 


COMPRISING  A   DISCUSSION  WITH  A  BISHOP  OF 
THE   ROMAN   CATHOLIC   CHURCH 


BY 

WILLIAM    DEARING  ^HARDEN 


"  It  is  obvious  that  the  most  indispensable  requisite  in  regard  to  Religion 
is  that  it  should  be  true.  No  specious  hopes  or  nattering  promises  can  have  the 
slightest  value  unless  they  be  genuine  and  based  upon  substantial  realities.  Fear 
of  the  results  of  investigation,  therefore,  should  deter  no  man,  for  the  issue  in 
any  case  is  gain:  emancipation  from  delusion,  or  increase  of  assurance.  It  is 
poor  honor  to  sequester  a  creed  from  healthy  handling,  or  to  shrink  from  the 
serious  examination  of  its  doctrines.  That  which  is  true  in  Religion  cannot  be 
shaken  ;  that  which  is  false  no  one  can  desire  to  preserve." — Supernatural 
Religion,  Preface  to  First  Edition. 

"  It  is  absurd  to  assume  what  is  beyond  reason  to  account  for  what  is  opposed 
to  reason." — Ibid.     Part  I.,  Chapter  3,  Sec.    2. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

NEW  YORK  LONDON 

27    WEST  TWENTY-THIRD    ST.  24    BEDFORD    ST.,    STRAND 

%\i  fimdurbochrr  |}rcss 
1893 


COPYRIGHT,  1893 
BY 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 


Electrotyped,  Printed  and  Bound  by 

Ube  Ifcntckerbocfcer;  press,  mew  l^ork 
G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 


TO   MY  CHILDREN 

for  whose  advantage  even  more  than  for  my  own  this 
Search  for  Truth  has  been  prosecuted,  so  much  of  this 
volume  as  I  can  fairly  claim  as  my  own,  and  therefore  sub- 
ject to  such  disposition,  is  most  affectionately  inscribed  ; 
with  the  earnest,  soul-full  prayer  that,  if  there  be  error  in 
my  views,  the  conviction  of  it  may  be  brought  to  my  mind 
before  it  can  possibly  affect  theirs. 

W.  D.  H. 


PREFACE. 


SOME  time  ago,  for  reasons  of  no  interest  to  the 
public,  I  engaged  in  a  friendly  controversy  on 
religious  topics,  running  in  a  rather  desultory  way  through 
several  years,  with  a  Bishop  (since  Archbishop)  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.  A  mass  of  arguments  on  both 
sides  of  the  question  was  thus  accumulated,  and  friends, 
who  think  they  have  been  benefited  by  reading  the  dis- 
cussion, have  urged  its  publication. 

Thinking  that  it  may  reach  and  benefit  some  who  would 
be  deterred  from  undertaking  an  examination  of  the  sub- 
ject if  the  argument  had  assumed  a  more  learned  and 
profound  shape  ;  believing  that  the  fact  of  its  being  an 
actual  discussion,  in  which  the  side  of  orthodoxy  is  rep- 
resented by  a  learned  Bishop  of  her  strongest  Church, 
would  lend  an  additional  interest  to  the  argument ;  know- 
ing that  it  is  a  great  advantage,  in  a  search  for  truth,  to 
have  the  argument  on  the  one  side  directly  contrasted 
with  the  argument  on  the  other,  the  weakness  of  the  one 
adding  to  the  strength  of  the  other  ;  and,  more  than  all, 
because  the  argument  is  in  a  form  that  can  be  understood 
without  any  previous  theological  education,  and  is  there- 
fore the  better  adapted  to  the  ordinary  lay  reader,  and 
every  new  argument,  or  new  statement  of  an  old  argu- 
ment, may  convince  some  who  had  not  been  convinced 


vi  PREFACE. 

before,— I  have  consented  to  give  the  discussion  to  the 

public. 

In  its  original  form  the  correspondence  (which  it  is 
proper  to  state  was  probably  written  by  both,  certainly  by 
me,  without  any  idea  of  any  future  publication)  contained 
much  of  a  purely  personal  nature,  and  the  argument  was 
necessarily  somewhat  disjointed,  each  paper  discussing  a 
variety  of  subjects.  I  have  therefore  thought  it  best  to 
re-arrange  it  so  as  to  omit  that  which  was  purely  personal 
and  not  pertinent  to  the  argument,  and  to  give  it  a  more 
connected  form,  putting  together  all  the  correspondence 
on  each  subject  and  arranging  the  points  in  what  seems  a 
more  natural  sequence. 

Further  than  this  I  have  not  interfered  with  the 
Bishop's  presentation  of  his  views.  I  have  had  no  dis- 
position to  set  up  any  specious  or  pretended  arguments 
in  order  to  refute  them  ;  I  am  too  much  in  earnest  for 
that.  I  did  not  even  seek  an  inexperienced  or  unlearned 
layman  with  whom  to  discuss  for  the  sake  of  confounding ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  I  sought  the  most  distinguished  and 
learned  Prelate  within  my  reach,  and  if  he  has  replied 
to,  without  answering,  my  arguments,  it  may  be  safely 
assumed  that  it  is  because  they  are  unanswerable. 

The  correspondence  was  a  real  one,1  and  I  have  the 
right  to  use  the  Bishop's  argument,  which  I  think  covers 
pretty  much  all  that  can  be  said  for  his  Church,  and  I  use 
it  in  his  own  words. 

In  my  own  argument  I  have  dropped  the  epistolary 
form,  and  address  myself  directly  to  the  reader.8 

1  The  original  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Publishers. 

2  The  choice  was  before  me  to  use  the  material  for  the  purpose  of  writing 
a  book,  in  which  the  entire  argument  on  both  sides  would  be  in  my  own 
words — which  might  give  the  orthodox,  if  they  felt  themselves  worsted,  the 


PREFACE.  vii 

If  there  is  any  argument,  other  than  those  herein  dis- 
cussed, that  can  be  urged  against  my  views ;  any  argu- 
ment which  dcuss  not  depend  upon  the  point  at  issue  for 
one  of  its  premises  ;  any  argument  which  is  sustained  by 
fact  rather  than  by  mere  assertion,  and  which  appeals 
to  reason,  and  not  alone  to  faith  ;  any  argument  not 
entirely  based  on  the  authority  of  a  doubtful  scripture,  or 
a  still  more  doubtful  tradition, — I  will  be  more  than 
pleased  to  hear  it,  come  from  what  source  it  may,  and 
will  answer  or  yield. 

But  otherwise  further  discussion  would,  I  fear,  be  but 
time  wasted. 

It  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  science  that  a  theory 
is  exploded  whenever  a  single  fact  is  produced,  within  the 
range  of  its  application,  which  it  does  not  explain  or 
account  for  ;  the  variance  of  fact  and  theory  is  always  fatal 
to  theory.  I  do  not  see  why  the  same  principle  may  not 
be  applied  to  theology.  So,  if  there  be  a  single  point  in 
my  argument  which  the  Church  cannot  meet,  the  Church 
must  go  to  the  wall ;  not  that  I  expect  to  be  the  means 
of  accomplishing  what  so  many  abler  and  better  men 
have  failed  to  compass — the  death  of  superstition.  I  know 
human  nature  too  well  for  that  ;  but  I  do  hope  to  satisfy 
some  of  my  readers  that  the  dogmas  of  the  Church  are 

chance  to  say  that  I  had  used  only  such  arguments  in  behalf  of  the  Church 
as  I  thought  I  could  answer,  leaving  out  the  strongest,  or  emasculating 
them  by  my  method  of  statement  ;  or  to  give  the  correspondence  substan- 
tially as  it  stood,  with  all  its  imperfections  on  both  sides.  I  have  chosen 
the  latter  course  as  being  fairer  to  my  opponent,  and  decidedly  more  in- 
teresting to  the  public,  who  might  be  attracted  by  the  unusual  fact  of  an 
actual  controversy,  and  would  not  be  repelled  by  finding  itself  entrapped 
into  a  dry  and  technical  theological  dissertation  ;  and  I  might  thus  reach 
the  people  whom  I  sought  above  all  others — those  who,  not  realizing  its 
importance,  were  not  disposed  to  give  much  time  or  thought  to  the  subject. 


viii  PREFA  CE. 

devised  rather  for  its  own  perpetuation  than  their  salva- 
tion ;  and  if  I  shall  succeed  in  bringing  even  one  human 
soul  from  darkness  into  light — from  superstition  and 
death  to  freedom  and  life — I  will  not  have  thought  and 
worked  in  vain. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTORY 


PAGE 

I 


THE  POINTS  TO  BE  DISCUSSED 


Proposition  I.  Influence  of  the  Church 

Proposition  IT.  Free-Will 

Proposition  III.  CEcumenical  Councils 

Proposition  IV.  The  Divinity  of  Jesus 

Proposition  V.  The  Betrayal 

Proposition  VI.  The  Bible 

Proposition  VII.  The  Mass.     Good  Works 


47 
69 
114 
186 
221 
237 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS 


242 


AN    INQUIRY    INTO 

THE  TRUTH    OF   DOGMATIC 

CHRISTIANITY. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

IT  is  my  belief  that  Dogmatic  Christianity,  Catholic 
and  Protestant,  contains,  along  with  much  that  is 
pure,  good,  and  elevating,  much  that  is  unreasonable,  un- 
authorized, untrue,  and  pernicious. 

That  owing  to  this  the  good  which  it  has  undoubtedly 
accomplished,  and  may  yet  accomplish,  has  been,  and  is, 
fully,  if  not  more  than,  counterbalanced  by  the  harm  it 
has  done  and  is  doing. 

I  believe,  further,  that  the  false  may,  to  a  great  extent, 
be  separated  from  the  true,  and  that  whatever  can  be 
clearly  established  as  untrue  should  be  discarded  :  and 
that  once  freed  from  its  errors,  retaining  only  its  truths, 
Christianity  will  arise  from  the  ashes  of  dogmatism  puri- 
fied, glorified  ;  and  men  need  no  longer  fear  to  examine 
their  faith  in  the  strong  clear  light  of  reason. 

The  object  of  my  argument,  therefore,  is  to  point  out 
in  a  simple,  homely  way,  that  all  can  understand,  what  I 
consider  error  in  the  Church's  Creed,  and  why,  and  to 
show  that  with   its   errors   expunged  Christianity,  so  far 


2  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

from  being  injured  or  having  its  power  for  good  impaired, 
will  be  in  every  way  strengthened  and  improved. 

I  claim  an  earnest  desire  to  benefit  my  fellow-man  as 
far  as  I  am  able  to  do  so  without  neglecting  my  personal 
duties,  or  injuring  my  private  interests.  I  think  that  man 
will  be  benefited,  here  and  hereafter,  by  having  a  true 
religion,  pure  and  undefiled  ;  and  if  I  can  help  him  to 
that,  I  will  have  helped  him  indeed. 

Hence,  writing  with  the  wish  to  benefit  those  who  differ 
with  me  in  their  theological  ideas,  and  with  the  hope  of 
bringing  them  to  adopt  my  views,  it  has  been  my  desire 
to  say  nothing  which  could  in  any  way  wound  their  sus- 
ceptibilities :  and  if  I  should  appear  sometimes  to  be  either 
caustic  or  flippant,  it  is  because  the  argument  of  the 
Church,  or  the  example  of  her  defenders,  seemed  to  call 
for  it. 

But  I  desire  my  orthodox  readers  and  friends  (and 
probably  the  larger  portion  of  both  readers  and  friends 
are,  or  think  themselves,  orthodox)  to  be  assured  that  I 
speak  with  none  but  the  kindliest  feelings  towards  them 
personally ;  and  I  beg  them  to  read  me  calmly  and  dis- 
passionately, and  to  avoid  coming  to  any  conclusion  until 
they  have  read  it  all.  I  beg  them  to  read  as  I  have 
studied  and  written,  with  the  single  object  of  ascertaining 
just  how  much  of  orthodoxy  is  true  and  beneficial,  and 
how  much  false  and  hurtful ;  with  the  full  assurance  that, 
whether  concurring  with,  or  dissenting  from,  me,  their 
honest  conclusions  will  always  be  entitled  to,  and  shall 
receive  from  me,  that  respect  which  is  due  to  every  con- 
scientious conviction  ;  and  let  us  hope  that  some  day,  not 
this  or  that  belief,  but  the  actual,  living  truth  will  reach 
the  minds  of  us  all,  and  really  deliver  us  from  "  envy, 
hatred,  and  malice,  and  ail  uncharitableness." 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  3 

I  know  that  I  attack  some  beliefs  which  are  cherished 
with  the  fondest  reverence,  the  most  affectionate  devo- 
tion, and  the  deepest  awe,  and  that  such  will  be  aban- 
doned only  with  the  greatest  reluctance ;  but  this  should 
not  be  so  :  any  belief  that  is  shown  to  be  unfounded  in 
fact  or  reason  should  be  discarded  unhesitatingly,  no 
matter  how  dear ;  for  age  cannot  sanctify  error,  nor  faith 
make  truth. 

But  I  am  asked  "  cui  bono  ?  "  Why  should  I  seek  to 
weaken  any  one's  faith,  unless  I  have  something  better 
with  which  to  replace  old  beliefs  ? 

I  reply  that  I  have  something  better  with  which  to  re- 
place such  beliefs  as  I  attack  :  I  propose  to  substitute  truth 
for  error.  And  I  have  no  disposition  to  interfere  with  any 
faith  the  holding  of  which  can  be  of  any  possible  benefit 
here  or  hereafter.  I  would  not  leave  humanity  comfort- 
less. But  I  would  relieve  it  from  the  hideous  incubus  of 
superstition  ;  from  the  fearful  tyranny  of  an  earth-devised 
Church ;  from  the  paralyzing  clutches  of  a  fear-inspiring 
clergy.  I  would  elevate  its  conception  of  deity,  and  teach 
it  that  God  is  indeed  love ;  that  He  hates  nothing  that 
He  has  made;  that  He  has  made  us  for  other  purposes 
than  to  administer  to  His  vanity  ;  that  He  is  not  subject 
to  the  worst  of  human  frailties ;  that  He  has  no  favorites 
through  whose  importunities  He  can  be  induced  to  change 
His  purposes;  that  He  will  not  hurl  the  thunderbolts  of 
His  wrath  at  the  poor  mortal  who  may  prefer  to  act  in 
accordance  with  his  own  honest  convictions,  even  though 
they  may  run  counter  to  the  dicta  of  the  Church ;  that 
He  is  neither  a  supernatural  Jew  nor  an  incorporeal 
Christian. 

God  has  given  us  reason  :  it  is  impossible  for  me  to 
believe  that  He  did  not  intend  for  us  to  use  it :  it  can  be 


4  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

fully  used  only  when  unrestrained,  therefore  I  would  set 
it  free.  Whatever  is  within  its  grasp,  it  should  control ; 
only  that  which  is  above,  beyond  it  can  be  proper 
subject-matter  for  faith ;  and  when  faith  and  reason  are 
antagonistic,  faith  must  succumb ;  it  should  live  only 
when  in  accord  with,  or,  at  least,  unopposed  by  reason. 

Then  let  us  use  our  God-given  reason  cautiously,  care- 
fully, prayerfully,  but  honestly  and  fearlessly  ;  and  in  the 
language  of  Paul  "  prove  all  things :  hold  fast  that  which 
is  good."  Surely  no  one  can  wish  to  worship  a  myth,  or 
hang  his  hope  of  salvation  on  a  shadow.  So  then,  I  say, 
let  us  reason  together,  not  in  the  spirit  of  bitter  sectarian- 
ism, but  in  the  love  of  God,  which  is  truth,  and  fear  not 
the  result.  If  our  views  remain  unchanged,  our  convic- 
tions will  have  been  strengthened,  and  our  doubts  dis- 
sipated :  if  we  agree  with  the  conclusions  which  I  have 
reached,  we  will  have  indeed  found  that  "  peace  of  mind 
which  passeth  understanding."  I  speak  from  my  personal 
experience,  confirmatory  of  that  of  others ;  for,  brought 
up  with  the  usual  views  of  a  youth  reared  by  Christian 
parents  in  a  Christian  country,  I  had  become  so  harassed 
by  doubts  that  would  not  down  at  the  command  of  faith, 
that  I  was  forced,  in  spite  of  myself,  to  investigate  a  sub- 
ject which  I  considered  too  important  to  be  left  in  uncer- 
tainty :  and  if  ever  a  man  sought  earnestly  for  truth,  if 
ever  a  man  prayed  fervently  for  light,  I  know  I  have ;  and 
if  ever  a  man  had  his  search  rewarded  and  his  prayer 
answered,  I  believe  I  have  ;  and  I  feel  as  though  I  had 
come  up  out  of  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death  into 
the  pure  bright  light  of  God's  truth  shining,  not  for  this 
or  that  creed,  not  for  this  or  that  nation,  but  for  all 
humanity.  Hence  I  know  that  when  once  we  have  freed 
ourselves  from  those  terrible  doctrines  and  dogmas  which 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  5 

we  have  hitherto  feared  to  even  investigate  ;  when  we 
have  cast  aside  the  senseless  errors  and  superstitions  of  the 
ignorant  past  as  merely  the  outcome  of  the  early  gropings 
of  primitive  man  ;  and  study  God  as  He  has  revealed 
Himself  in  nature,  the  truths  of  the  present  and  the  hopes 
of  the  future  become  actual  living  realities  ;  and  in  the  life- 
giving  atmosphere  of  rationalism  we  fairly  revel  in  moral 
health,  and  really  love,  instead  of  fearing,  the  great  con- 
trolling Spirit  of  the  universe. 

How  far  I  shall  succeed  in  establishing  that  certain  be- 
liefs are  not  only  not  sustained,  but  are  actually  disproved, 
by  reason,  I  cannot  possibly  foretell.  I  hope  I  may  con- 
vince ;  but  I  will  be  satisfied  if  I  induce  the  reader  to  think 
and  investigate  earnestly  and  conscientiously  for  himself; 
for  earnest  thought  and  conscientious  investigation  must 
certainly,  as  I  think,  lead  to  the  absolute  conviction  of  the 
truth  of  the  propositions  urged  by  me.  And  sure  am  I 
that  if  every  doctrine  I  combat  were  destroyed,  humanity 
would  be  the  gainer. 

The  two  commandments  enunciated  by  Jesus,  and  which 
he  said  included  all  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  which, 
being  taught  by  all  the  old  religions  (except  perhaps  the 
Hebrew)  may  be  considered  as  the  ethical  instinct  of  all 
humanity,  contain  all  that  is  necessary  as  a  rule  of  con- 
duct ;  and  the  doctrine  which  I  urge,  that  there  is  no  escape 
from  the  consequences  of  wrong-doing,  even  by  repentance, 
confession,  or  absolution — that  no  vicarious  atonement 
can  help  us — that  the  penalties  for  transgressing  the  law 
are  sure  and  proportionate,  though  not  endless — would 
seem  to  furnish  an  all-sufficient  motive  to  those  who 
need  the  fear  of  punishment  to  induce  them  to  observe 
the  law. 

I  think,  therefore,  that  I  am  justified  in  saying  that  I 


DOGMA  TIC    CHRISTIANITY. 


seek  to  remove  only  such  beliefs  as  are  hurtful,  because 
false,  and  try  to  hold  fast  to  that  which  is  good  ;  and  with 
the  hope  that  I  may  bring  truth  to  the  minds  of  those  who 
have  it  not,  and  strengthen  it  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
already  possess  it,  I  proceed  with  the  argument. 


THE  ARGUMENT. 

THE    POINTS   TO    BE    DISCUSSED. 

I  HAVE  found  it  convenient  to  divide  the  subject  into 
distinct  propositions,  all  tending,  however,  to  the 
same  end — the  demonstration  of  the  defects  of  Dogmatic 
Christianity — and  will  discuss  them  seriatim,  giving, 
whenever  I  have  it,  the  argument  contra  of  my  learned 
opponent. 

While  I  thus  subdivide  the  subject,  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  each  proposition,  while  seemingly  distinct  in 
itself,  is  but  a  branch  of  the  controversy,  and  is  so  inter- 
woven with,  and  so  overlaps,  the  others,  that  it  is  difficult 
to  draw  a  very  accurate  dividing  line  between  them,  and 
much  that  is  said  under  one  head  is  equally  appropriate  to 
another ;  and  there  will  necessarily  be  some  repetition,  the 
more  especially  as  I  have  tried  to  make  the  argument  on 
each  point  as  complete  in  itself  as  the  circumstances  would 
permit. 

I  will  endeavor  to  establish  the  following  propositions, 
premising  that  by  the  term  "  Church  "  here,  and  in  the 
argument,  I  mean  Dogmatic  Christianity  in  any  of  its 
phases,  Catholic  or  Protestant. 

I.     The  Church  has  exerted,  and  still  exerts,  a  baleful  in- 
fluence upon  mankind  : 

a.  by  discouraging  the  study  of  nature  and  suppress- 
ing the  use  of  reason,  thereby  checking  progress 
and  retarding  civilization  ;  and 
7 


8  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

b.  by  insisting  that  belief  is  necessary  to   salvation, 

thereby  driving  many  to  despair  and  ruin  ; 
and  man's  physical,  mental,  and  spiritual   advance- 
ment has    been,   and  must    be,  through    skepticism 
and  free-thought,  and  in  spite — and  not  because — of 
the  Church. 

II.  The  doctrine  of  free-will,  as  usually  understood  and 
as  taught  by  the  Church,  is  impossible  if  God  be  as 
He  is  represented.  Attributing  the  origin  of  sin  to 
man  is  absurd;  and  the  idea  of  a  continual  strife 
between  God  and  the  Devil  is  blasphemous. 

III.  The  councils  of  the  Church  by  which  her  Creeds 
were  formulated,  were  not  inspired,  but  very  fallible, 
assemblies  of  exceedingly  natural  men ;  and  their 
decrees  are  conflicting,  unreasonable,  and  utterly 
without  authority. 

IV.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  not  God,  nor  the  son,  in  the 
sense  of  offspring,  of  God  ;  he  never  claimed  to  be 
either,  nor  did  others  claim  it  for  him  until  long  after 
his  death  ;  and  during  his  life  he  never  sought  or  re- 
ceived divine  honors. 

He  taught  no  new  ethics  ;  and  the  ethics  of  many  of 
the  "Pagans"  were  superior  to  those  of  the  Jews, 
and  equal  to  those  of  the  Church. 

V.  If  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  God,  he  could  not  have 
been  betrayed,  and  Judas  Iscariot  was  but  a  helpless 
instrument  in  the  hands  of  Omnipotence  ;  if  Judas 
was  a  traitor,  Jesus  was  not  God  :  and  the  doctrine 
of  free-will  does  not  relieve  us  from  the  dilemma, 
for  the  attempt  to  reconcile  free-will  with  the  attri- 
butes of  God  results  only  in  attacking  His  absolute 
supremacy. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  9 

VI.  The  Bible  is  not  a  divinely  inspired  book  ;  and  being 
untrustworthy  as  to  its  facts  cannot  be  relied  on  as 
i»fallible  as  to  its  theories. 

VII.  Arguments  directed  especially  against  the  Roman 
Catholic  form  of  orthodoxy  : 

Saying  masses  for  the  dead — for  a  pecuniary  con- 
sideration— is  either  obtaining  money  under  false 
pretences,  or  is  selling  the  grace  of  God  ; 

If  repentance  and  confession  are  necessary  to  and 
will  secure  salvation,  charity  and  other  good  works 
cannot  affect  our  future  condition — unless  the  for- 
giveness of  God  can  be  bought  ; 

and  the  Church  practising  the  one  and  teaching  the 

other  is  in  error  and  not  infallible. 

I  realize  the  difficulties  of  the  task,  but  I  think  it  can  be 
accomplished. 

I  shall  endeavor,  where  I  state  arguments  on  •  the  side 
of  the  Church  otherwise  than  in  the  Bishop's  own  words, 
to  state  them  fairly  and  candidly  ;  and  I  will  try  to  present 
those  on  my  side  clearly. 

I  may,  doubtless  will,  have  to  say  many  things  in  the 
course  of  my  remarks  which  will  clash  unpleasantly  with 
the  views  of  those  who  differ  with  me  ;  but  I  shall  say 
them  with  all  respect  for  my  opponents  and  their  honest 
convictions ;  and  I  trust  that  even  if  my  views  be  found 
objectionable,  my  language  may  never  be  offensive. 

Some  of  my  arguments  will  be  recognized  as  old  and 
familiar,  for  I  have  not  hesitated  to  use  any  legitimate 
argument  which  I  thought  of  without  reference  to,  and 
frequently  without  knowing,  where  it  came  from.  Some 
I  have  never  heard  from  others ;  yet  I  cannot  doubt  but 


lO  DOGMATIC    CHRISTIANITY. 

that  even  these  have  been  used  before.  But  age  does  not 
hurt  an  argument  if  it  has  not  been  refuted,  and  an  argu- 
ment, whether  original  or  borrowed,  is  an  argument  still, 
and  its  value  depends  on  its  inherent  strength,  not  on  who 
may  be  its  author. 


THE  ARGUMENT. 

PROPOSITION    I. 

I.      The  Church  has  exerted,  and  still  exerts,  a  baleful  in- 
fluence upon  mankind  : 

a.  by  discouraging  the  study  of  nature  and  suppress- 
ing the  use  of  reason,  thereby  checking  progress 
and  retarding  civilization  ;  and 

b.  by  insisting  that  belief  is  necessary  to  salvation, 
thereby  driving  many  to  despair  and  ruin  ; 

and  man's  physical,  mental,  and  spiritual  advance- 
ment has  been,  and  must  be,  through  skepticism 
and  free-thought,  and  in  spite — and  not  because — of 
the  Church. 

The  Church  has  so  pertinaciously  claimed  that  every- 
thing good  comes  from,  through,  or  by  it ;  has  so  persist- 
ently appropriated  to  itself  the  credit  of  improving  man's 
temporal  condition  as  well  as  of  providing  for  his  future 
happiness,  that  it  seldom  occurs  to  any  one  to  question 
its  pretensions.  But  some  have  thought  it  worth  while  to 
look  into  the  matter,  and  I  purpose  giving,  very  briefly,  a 
summary  of  some  of  their  researches  into  history,  and 
also  my  own  views  on  the  subject,  that  we  may  form  a 
more  accurate  opinion  than  some  of  us  probably  now 
have,  as  to  the  value  of  the  Church's  services  to  man  in 
the  past  and  now. 

I  think  it  necessary  that  I  should  state  the  actual  truth, 


12  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

because  it  is  constantly  urged  on  me,  and  many  doubtless 
so  think,  that  even  if  the  Church  be  wrong  in  many  of  its 
dogmas  and  doctrines,  it  has  done  and  is  doing  so  much 
good  that  it  should  be  helped,  not  hurt ;  that  most  cer- 
tainly some  religion  is  necessary  to  control,  at  least,  the 
masses,  and  keep  them  in  the  paths  of  rectitude  and  vir- 
tue ;  and  that  Christianity,  as  taught  by  the  Churches, 
Roman,  Greek,  and  Protestant,  is  the  best  and  highest 
form  of  religion  known  ;  and,  even  if  not  true,  should  not 
be  interfered  with  ;  that  a  disbelief  in  the  Church  and  the 
religion  which  it  teaches  would  do  much  harm  and  no 
good. 

I  doubt  the  morality  of  the  position,  which  is  closely 
akin  to  the  doctrine  that  evil  maybe  done  that  good  may 
follow.  I  think  that  what  is  false  should  perish  because 
it  is  false,  and  that  no  other  reason  is  necessary  for  com- 
bating it.  And  while  I  believe  it  to  be  a  fact  that  it  is  a 
great  advantage  to  any  one  to  have  a  religion,  I  believe 
also  that  it  is  of  grave  importance  that  such  religion 
should  be  true ;  and  I  do  not,  and  cannot,  believe  that  a 
false  religion  can  do  more  good  than  a  true  one — that 
the  spirit  of  falsehood  is  stronger  for  good  than  is  the 
spirit  of  truth. 

I  make  no  war  on  religion.  I  attack  only  such  phases 
of  it  as  seem  to  me  to  be  clearly  wrong  and  hurtful ;  and 
I  think  that  what  is  left,  the  true,  is  all  that  is  worth 
preserving— is  all  that  does  any  good.  All  the  morality 
of  Christianity,  the  outpouring  of  the  ethical  instincts  of 
all  humanity,  should  and  must  stand  forever;  the  mere 
dogmatic  teachings  of  ecclesiasticism  with  reference  to 
beliefs,  with  no  foundation  in  fact  or  reason,  should  be 
discarded.  They  may  be  useful  to  the  Church  in  helping 
to  sustain  her  power,  wealth,  and  glory,  but  are  exceed- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  1 3 

ingly  injurious  in  their  effects  on  mankind.  Christianity, 
as  taught  by  the  Church,  may  be  the  best  form  of 
organized  religion  known,  but  it  is  certainly  not  the 
best  knowable,  nor  near  so  good  as  it  will  be  with  its 
errors  expunged  and  only  its  truths  left.  And  this  I 
now  attempt  to  show,  beginning  with  the  Church's  past 
record. 

(a.)  I  quote,  and  largely,  from  a  little  pamphlet  called 
The  Influence  of  Christianity  on  Civilization,  by  B.  F. 
Underwood. 

Having  shown  in  detail  the  condition  of  Europe  when 
it  was  under  the  absolute  domination  of  the  Church  ; 
when  all  learning,  all  science,  all  art,  all  history,  all  litera- 
ture in  Christendom  were  monopolized  by  the  clergy,  and 
no  education  worthy  the  name  existed  outside ;  when  the 
light  of  the  Church,  in  its  full  and  unobstructed  power, 
though  shining  so  brilliantly  for  the  clergy,  shone  so 
dimly  for  the  rest  of  mankind  that  that  period  has  ever 
since  been  known  as  the  "  Dark  Ages," — the  mental  and 
moral  atmosphere  sodden  with  ignorance  and  supersti- 
tion until  the  mind  of  the  laity  began  at  last  to  hunger 
for  wholesome  air  and  nutritious  food  ;  he  goes  on  to 
show  how  they  were  obtained. 

He  quotes  Lecky(and  I  commence  my  selections  on  p. 
63)  thus  : 

"  The  influence  of  theology  having  for  centuries  benumbed  and  paralyzed 
the  whole  intellect  of  Christian  Europe,  the  revival  which  forms  the  start- 
ing-point of  our  modern  civilization,  was  mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  two 
spheres  of  intellect  still  remained  uncontrolled  by  the  sceptre  of  Catholicism. 
The  Pagan  literature  of  antiquity  and  the  Mohammedan  schools  of  science 
were  the  chief  agencies  in  resuscitating  the  dormant  energies  of  Chris- 
tendom." 1 

1  Hist,  of  Morals,  p.  18.     Appleton  &  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1869. 


14  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

Mr.  Underwood  goes  on  to  say : 

"  The  Crusades,  the  main  object  of  which  was  to  get  possession  of  an 
empty  sepulchre,  and  which  a  writer  justly  says  '  turned  Syria  into  an 
Aceldama,  and  inundated  with  blood  the  fairest  fields  of  Europe,'  neverthe- 
less, by  bringing  the  Christians  more  generally  and  more  directly  in  contrast 
with  the  Saracens,  accomplished  much  good.  '  They  proved,'  says  Guizot, 
'  a  great  progress  toward  more  extensive  and  liberal  ideas.  They,  the 
Crusaders,  also  found  themselves  in  juxtaposition  with  two  civilizations,  not 
only  different  from  their  own,  but  more  advanced — the  Greeks  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  Mohammedans  on  the  other It  is  curious  to  ob- 
serve in  the  old  Chronicles  the  impression  which  the  Crusaders  made  upon 
the  Mussulmans.  These  latter  regarded  them  at  first  as  barbarians  ;  as  the 
rudest,  the  most  ferocious,  and  the  most  stupid  class  cf  men  they  had  ever 
seen.  The  Crusaders,  on  their  part,  were  struck  with  the  riches  and  ele- 
gance of  manners  of  the  Mussulmans.'  x 

"  Brought  thus  in  contact  with  a  people  greatly  their  superiors  in  intelli- 
gence and  culture,  the  Christians  could  not  help  receiving  benefit  from  those 
whose  country  they  invaded.  That  Christendom,  in  various  ways,  is  vastly 
indebted  to  the  Arabs,  and  especially  to  the  Saracens,  for  the  intellectual 
advancement  that  has  been  made  within  its  limits,  no  person  who  has 
acquaintance  with  the  history  of  the  middle  ages  can  deny.  By  them  the 
learning  and  ethics  of  pagan  antiquity  were  disinterred  from  the  dust  of 
centuries  and  transmitted  and  cultivated  on  the  soil  of  modern  Europe. 
And  it  was  contact  with  the  Saracens  that  quickened  the  energies  and 
enlarged  the  minds  of  the  European  Christians,  and  prepared  the  way  for 
advances  in  every  direction.  Knowledge  and  skepticism  increased  together. 
The  rationalism  of  Abelard  in  the  twelfth  century,  the  heresies  of  the  Walden- 
ses,  which  gave  the  Church  so  much  trouble  and  called  forth  her  vengeance,  the 
spirit  of  free-thought,  of  which  general  complaint  was  made  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  all  furnish  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  strong  and  growing  senti- 
ment against  the  prevailing  system.  The  poetry  of  Dante,  in  which  he 
assigned  several  popes  a  place  in  hell  for  their  vices,  the  sonnets  of  Petrarch, 
in  some  of  which  the  Church  of  Rome  is  characterized  as  a  harlot,  and  the 
tales  of  Boccaccio,  wherein  the  vices  of  the  monks  and  priests  were  freely 
exposed,  among  other  works  of  less  ability  and  note,  tended  to  increase  con- 
tempt for  the  Church  and  her  unholy  pretensions.  The  influence  of  Roger 
Bacon.     .     .     .     The  invention  of  rag  paper,  and  afterwards  of  printing. 

1  Hist.  Civilization,  vol.  i.,  p.  154.  See  Hazlitt's  translation,  Appleton 
&  Co.,  1867,  pp.  182. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  1 5 

.  .  .  An  acquaintance  with  the  mariner's  compass  .  .  .  and  a 
knowledge  of  gunpowder,  proved  of  incalculable  value  to  the  cause  of  progress. 
.  .  .  Copernicus,  and  later  Galileo,  opened  to  the  contemplation  of  man 
other  worlds  than  our  own  ;  science  and  philosophy  received  more  and  more 
attention,  and  the  heart  of  man  seemed  to  beat  with  a  more  vigorous  pulsa- 
tion, and  his  mind,  brought  from  heaven  to  earth,  awakened  to  a  life  of  ac-  ' 
tivity  and  adventure.  .  .  .  During  all  this  struggle  between  intellectual 
life  and  intellectual  death,  which  continued  for  ages,  Christianity  opposed 
most  stubbornly  every  innovation  and  punished  with  imprisonment,  torture, 
and  death  the  votaries  of  science,  philosophy,  and  reform.  Roger  Bacon 
was  imprisoned  ten  years  for  his  scientific  investigations  ;  the  work  of 
Copernicus  was  condemned  as  '  a  false  Pythagorean  doctrine,'  and  the 
author,  there  is  reason  to  believe,  excommunicated  ;  Bruno  was  burnt  at 
the  stake  ;  Galileo  was  arrested  and  forced  to  renounce  his  scientific  theories, 
and  when  released  his  steps  were  dogged  until  his  death. 

"If  the  Church  became  the  friend  of  the  serfs  against  the  nobles  of 
Europe,  it  was  because  a  proud  and  powerful  nobility,  not  always  submis- 
sive to  Ecclesiastical  discipline,  having  almost  unlimited  control  over  the 
people,  weakened  the  authority  of  the  Church.  The  people  once  more 
under  her  power,  she  oppressed  the  nobles  and  the  serfs  alike. 

"The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  joined  with  the  barons  in  extorting 
Magna  Charta  from  King  John.  For  this  act  he  incurred  the  wrath  of  Pope 
Innocent  III.,  who  removed  him  from  office,  denounced  the  Charter,  de- 
clared it  null  and  void,  and  threatened  the  King  with  excommunication  and 
the  curses  of  the  Church  if  he  did  not  disregard  it.     .     .     . 

"In  Spain,  the  supremacy  of  Catholic  Christianity  was  followed  by  the 
most  disastrous  results.  Under  the  Saracens,  as  we  have  seen,  that  country 
was  the  most  enlightened  portion  of  Europe.  Its  decline  commenced  with 
the  triumph  of  the  Christian  faith,  when  science  decayed,  manufactures 
gradually  disappeared,  industrial  pursuits  were  abandoned,  fields  were  un- 
cultivated, and  whole  districts  depopulated.  The  most  valuable  part  of  the 
Spanish  population — the  Moriscoes,  a  remnant  of  the  people  who  had  made 
Spain  illustrious  in  preceding  centuries — were  expelled  from  Spanish  soil. 
This  monstrous  wrong,  the  expulsion  of  100,000  people  from  their  native 
land,  was  urged  on  and  compelled  by  the  Spanish  priests.  '  When  they 
were  thrust  out  of  Spain,'  says  Buckle,  '  there  was  no  one  to  fill  their  places  ; 
arts  and  manufactures  either  degenerated  or  were  entirely  lost,  and  immense 
regions  of  arable  land  were  left  deserted  ;  .  .  .  Whole  districts  were 
suddenly  deserted,  and  down  to  the  present  day  have  never  been  repeopled. 
These  solitudes  gave  refuge  to  smugglers  and  brigands,  who  succeeded  the 
industrious  inhabitants  formerly  occupying  them ;  and  it  is  said  that  from 


t6  an  inquiry  into 

the  expulsion  of  the  Moriscoes  is  to  be  dated  the  existence  of  those 
organized  bands  of  robbers,  which  after  this  period  became  the  scourge 
of  Spain,  and  which  no  subsequent  government  has  been  able  entirely  to 
extirpate.' ' 

"  The  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Spain,  who  next  to  the  Moriscoes  were 
the  best  part  of  the  population,  still  further  contributed  to  the  downfall  of 
that  priest-ridden  country.  The  terrible  effects  of  the  Inquisition  can  never 
be  computed.  According  to  Llorente,  31,000  persons  were  burnt,  and  290,- 
000  condemned  to  other  kinds  of  punishment  by  this  institution  in  Spain 
alone.  It  destroyed  all  industry,  stamped  out  all  free-thought,  and  in  spite 
of  all  the  treasures  which  the  new  world  poured  into  Spain,  the  people  were 
reduced,  largely  through  its  influence,  to  a  condition  of  poverty  and  degra- 
dation. In  no  way  did  the  prevailing  religion  intentionally  encourage  the 
dissemination  of  learning  or  the  improvement  of  man's  unhappy  condition 
in  this  world.  On  the  contrary,  the  Church  robbed  and  impoverished  the 
people  here,  giving  them  in  return  promises  of  crowns  of  glory  beyond  the 
grave. 

"Since  man  has  to  a  considerable  extent,  in  some  portions  of  Christen- 
dom, emancipated  himself  from  the  thraldom  of  the  Church  he  has  made  un- 
precedented progress.  The  advocates  of  Christianity  now  absurdly  claim 
that  the  advancement  thus  made  is  justly  attributable  to  their  faith.  As  well 
might  we  ascribe  the  enlightenment  of  Spain  from  the  ninth  to  the  thirteenth 
century  to  the  religion  of  the  Koran.  In  those  times  the  Mohammedan  might 
have  maintained  the  divine  character  and  beneficent  tendency  of  his  religion 
by  a  comparison  of  Spain  with  the  Christian  countries  of  Europe  with  just 
as  much  reason  and  truth  as  the  defenders  of  Christianity  now  argue  in 
favor  of  the  divinity  and  favorable  tendency  of  their  religion  by  comparing 
the  Christian  nations  of  to-day  with  pagan  countries— with  as  much  reason 
and  truth  as  the  Protestant  endeavors  to  prove  what  the  Protestant  form  of 
Christianity  has  accomplished  by  pointing  to  England  and  America,  and 
contrasting  them  with  Spain  and  Mexico  as  they  are  to-day. 

"  It  is  not  uncommon  for  the  defenders  of  Christianity  to  refer  to  the  fact 
that  nearly  all  the  universities  of  learning  in  Christendom  are  sustained  in 
the  interests  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  that  science,  philosophy,  and 
literature  have  been  chiefly  encouraged  and  cultivated  by  those  who  have 
been  reared  under  the  influence  of  this  faith.  The  Saracens  of  Spain  in  the 
centuries  named  could  have  said  the  same  in  defence  of  Mohammedanism. 
The  noblest  universities  in  the  world  were  Mohammedan  institutions,  and  the 
cultivation   of   science   and  learning  was  brought  up  under  and    indoctri- 


1  Hist.  Civil. ,  vol. 


".,  p.    53. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  1? 

nated  in  the  Mohammedan  faith.  But  the  universities  and  learning  of  Spain 
were  surely  not  the  result  of  the  religion  of  the  Saracens.  Neither  are  the 
learning  and  the  universities  of  England,  Germany,  and  America  the  result 
of  any  form  of  Christianity.  Mohammedanism  was  less  unfavorable  to  intel- 
lectual progress  in  the  middle  ages  than  Mediaeval  Christianity.  So  Protes- 
tant Christianity  as  it  exists  in  England  or  America  is  far  less  injurious  in  its 
tendency  than  Catholicism  as  it  exists  in  Spain  and  Mexico  ;  but  it  is  cer- 
tainly absurd  to  maintain  that  the  progress  that  has  been  made  in  the  former 
countries  should  be  put  to  the  credit  of  Protestant  Christianity.  This  form 
of  Christianity,  like  Catholicism,  has,  in  the  past,  opposed  science,  philoso- 
phy, and  reform,  and  persecuted  the  pioneers  of  intellectual  progress  to  the 
full  extent  of  its  power  ;  but  happily,  its  power,  never  equal  to  that  of  the 
mother  Church,  has  been  growing  less  gradually  until  now  it  is  so  weak  that, 
in  this  country  especially,  it  can  oppose  but  feebly  the  discoveries  and  inno- 
vations which  contradict  its  assumptions  and  threaten  to  destroy  it  entirely. 
The  policy  that  it  now  adopts  to  get  a  new  lease  of  life  is  to  conform,  with 
the  best  possible  grace,  to  the  teachings  of  science  and  philosophy,  and  to 
acquiesce,  as  far  as  possible,  in  the  reforms  of  the  day. 

"Hence  it  is  now  comparatively  harmless  in  checking  intellectual  pro- 
gress. Herein  we  see  the  liberalizing  and  elevating  influence  of  those 
sciences  and  arts,  and  those  pursuits  of  industrialism  which  have  thus  ex- 
panded the  mind  and  enlightened  the  understanding,  and,  in  consequence, 
shorn  religion  of  its  power,  and  forced  it,  in  spite  of  its  stubborn  opposition 
at  every  step,  to  abandon  many  of  its  antiquated  errors,  and  stop  its  cruel 
persecution  of  the  benefactors  of  mankind.  It  is  skepticism  and  free- 
thought,  not  religion,  that  have  contributed  to  the  progress  we  have 
sketched. 

"  '  For  more  than  three  centuries,'  says  Lecky,  '  decadence  of  theological 
influence  has  been  one  of  the  most  invariable  signs  and  means  of  our 
progress.  In  medicine,  physical  science,  commercial  interests,  politics,  and 
even  ethics,  the  reformer  has  been  confronted  with  theological  affirmations 
which  barred  his  way,  which  were  all  defended  as  of  vital  importance,  and 
were  all  in  turn  compelled  to  yield  before  the  secularizing  influence  of 
civilization.'  1 

"  It  is  frequently  asserted  that  in  the  most  Christian  countries  the  people 
are  the  most  intellectual,  moral,  and  happy.  But  the  fact  is,  that  in  those 
countries  in  which  skepticism  and  infidelity  have  acquired  the  greatest 
strength  and  influence,  and  in  which  Christianity  has  been  modified  to  con- 
form to  the  changed  condition  of  affairs,  the  people  are  the  most  advanced." 

1  Hist.  Morals,  vol.  ii.,  p.  18. 


1 8  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

I  hardly  think  it  worth  while  to  quote  further.  Any 
unsectarian  history  of  the  middle  ages  will  afford  cumula- 
tive and  convincing  proof  of  the  prodigious  harm  worked 
by  the  Church. 

I  have  not  quoted  Church  writers  ;  they  are  too  apt  to 
confound  faith  and  fact,  assertion  and  argument,  and 
accept  or  reject  without  sufficient  investigation.  Nor  do 
I  think  a  rigid  Churchman  competent  to  investigate  and 
judge  in  matters  affecting  his  religion.  It  is  only  those 
who  have  emancipated  themselves  from  "  authority  "  and 
"  faith  " — who  have,  no  theory  to  sustain,  but  who  want 
truth  and  do  not  care  what  that  truth  may  be — who  can 
investigate  impartially,  and  are  apt  to  reach  correct  con- 
clusions. All  experience  proves  this,  and  until  human 
nature  becomes  different  from  what  it  is  it  must  continue 
to  be  so.  But  the  facts  which  I  have  quoted  cannot  be 
successfully  denied.  They  are  undoubtedly  true,  and  could 
not  have  been  otherwise  so  long  as  the  Church  believed 
and  taught  the  Bible  literally,  and  held  it  to  be  the  word 
of  God  ;  for  under  that  state  of  facts  any  scientific  demon- 
stration which  contradicted,  or  conflicted  with,  the  state- 
ments of  the  Bible,  must  have  been  regarded  as  dangerous. 
The  Church,  for  its  own  protection,  was  bound  to  see  that 
no  knowledge  should  find  its  way  into  any  man's  mind 
until  it  had  been  first  inspected  by  its  authority.  I  care 
not  if  a  word  of  history  had  never  been  written  ;  I  care 
not  if  every  word  of  history  that  ever  has  been  written 
had  been  lost  ;  it  must  follow,  as  a  matter  of  necessity, 
that  any  religion  which  teaches  that  God  Himself  revealed 
to  man  what  He  had  done  and  how  He  had  done  it, 
which  goes  into  detail,  and  undertakes  to  explain  nature ; 
which  represents  that  the  natural  facts  contained  in  the 
Bible  are  the  direct  statements  of  the  Creator  Himself; 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  1 9 

which,  in  short,  includes  a  detailed  cosmogony  as  well  as 
a  theology  ;  must  be  a  religion  which  discourages,  if  it 
does  not  forbid,  investigation.  Why  question  nature 
when  God,  its  Creator,  has  explained  ?  Why  seek  for 
further  information,  for  more  knowledge,  when  God  has 
revealed  all  He  thought  necessary  for  man?  And  when 
some  active,  honest  mind  that  would  not  be  still,  would 
observe,  record,  and  report  some  fact  in  nature  in  seeming 
conflict  with  the  sacred  statement,  it  could  not  be  other- 
wise than  that  he  should  be  regarded  as  a  heretic,  an 
enemy  of  mankind  ;  and  when  the  religion  taught  that 
God  Himself  directed  the  slaughter  of  His  and  their 
enemies  by  His  chosen  people,  it  could  hardly  be  that  the 
people  would  restrain  their  brutish  instincts  in  the  face  of 
what  they  would  have  been  justified  in  considering  a  per- 
mission, if  not  an  order,  to  turn  them  loose. 

Hence,  apart  from  the  teachings  of  history,  it  could  not 
have  been  otherwise  than  that  the  human  mind  was  fet- 
tered, benumbed,  paralyzed,  and  progress  rendered  well- 
nigh  impossible  either  in  science  or  religion,  except  where 
the  Church  could  turn  it  to  its  own  account. 

Therefore  the  arts,  and  such  sciences  as  did  not  conflict 
with — that  is,  did  not  touch — the  statements  of  the  Bible, 
would  have  flourished,  but  all  others  would  have  declined 
or  died  out, — notably  the  sciences  of  astronomy,  geology, 
and  medicine :  the  first  two  because  it  was  supposed 
that  the  Bible  told  all  that  was  necessary  on  the  subjects; 
and  the  third  because  nearly  all  sickness,  especially  epi- 
demics, was  regarded  as  a  direct  visitation  of  Divine  wrath, 
and  therefore  to  be  gotten  rid  of  only  by  prayer  or 
miracle.  And  this  is  just  what  history,  as  recorded  by 
honest  writers,  tells  us,  and  their  accounts  need  no  other 
confirmation.     Just  as  a  philologist  will  take  a  few  words, 


20  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

and  from  them  give  a  history  of  the  people  who  used 
them  ;  as  a  naturalist  will  from  a  single  bone  reconstruct 
in  his  mind  and  accurately  describe  the  animal  to  which  it 
had  belonged,  its  appearance,  habits,  and  disposition  ;  so 
an  historian  might  take  the  teachings  of  the  Church  and 
a  knowledge  of  human  nature,  and  tell  just  what  effects 
such  causes  must  have  necessarily  produced.  And  in 
looking  over  the  conflicting  statements  of  historians 
writing  from  different  standpoints,  for  or  against  the 
Church,  it  is  an  easy  matter  for  one  at  all  versed  in 
the  business  to  tell  the  true  from  the  false. 

But  we  have  further  proofs  of  all  this  before  us  now. 
The  world  is  still  suffering  from  the  influence  of  the 
Church,  whether  Catholic  or  Protestant.  We  still  find  the 
free  discussion  of  science,  ethics,  and  religion  frowned 
down.  The  Church,  thanks  to  the  civilization  brought 
about  by  the  few  brave  men  who  were  not  afraid  to  think 
and  speak  their  thoughts,  has  no  longer  the  power  to 
crush  and  punish,  but  she  tries  to  frighten  by  her  now 
powerless  bulls,  by  excommunications  and  anathemas, 
by  branding  with  such  harmless  epithets  as  "  infidel," 
"  deist,"  "  atheist,"  "  materialist,"  and  still  does  all  she 
can,  in  her  small  way,  to  check  progress.  Forced  into 
the  recognition  of  the  demonstrated  truths  of  astronomy, 
of  geology,  of  geography,  her  own  priests  now  study,  and 
make  discoveries,  and  hold  opinions  for  which  a  few  years 
ago  they  would  have  been  burned  at  the  stake.  And  we 
may  thank  infidelity  for.it.  A  very  pious  Protestant  said 
to  me,  not  long  ago,  that  he  hated  infidelity,  but  believed 
God  used  it  to  advance  the  world  in  knowledge  and  free- 
dom. And  it  is  undoubtedly  true.  It  is  owing  to  the 
civilizing  influences  of  infidelity  that  I  can  now  thus  pub- 
licly express  my  honest  convictions,  and  that  my  views 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         21 

are  patiently  examined,  and  approved  or  disapproved,  as 
the  case  may  be,  instead  of  my  being  denounced  to  the 
Grand  Inquisitor.  When  the  Church  was  in  supreme 
power,  I  would  not  have  dared  to  thus  write,  nor  the 
public  to  read.  Now  the  Church  attempts  to  use  no 
force,  but  leaves  me  unmolested.  Surely  it  has  changed 
for  the  better,  through  the  civilizing  effects  of  free- 
thought,  or  else  civilization  has  pulled  its  teeth,  cut  its 
claws,  and  made  it  seem  respectable. 

And  even  yet  we  are  not  entirely  free  from  the  old 
superstition  that  plagues  and  epidemics  are  but  the  ven- 
geance of  God  visited  upon  a  sinful  people  ;  and  we  still 
hear  of  masses,  processions,  prayer-meetings,  and  various 
similar,  but  always  unsuccessful,  devices  being  used  to 
prevent  or  get  rid  of  them.  But  if  the  Church  had  never 
taught  such  an  incorrect  and  blasphemous  idea,  but  had 
taught  that  diseases  are  sent  by  God  to  punish  man  for 
his  ignorance,  or  disregard  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  for 
no  other  sin,  and  only  to  teach  him  better,  the  time  wasted 
in  prayers,  processions,  fastings,  and  vigils,  would  have 
been  applied  to  studying  the  laws  of  hygiene,  and  far 
more  progress  would  have  been  made  in  stopping  epidem- 
ics than  has  been.  Nature  warns  but  never  forgives. 
Violate  her  laws,  she  warns  by  striking ;  continue  to  vio- 
late, and  she  strikes  mortally.  How  much  more  important, 
then,  to  study  nature  as  she  is,  than  to  spend  time  pray- 
ing to  God  to  change  His  laws  to  suit  our  views.  Holy 
wafers,  masses,  relics,  charms,  and  prayers  will  not  do 
anything  towards  warding  off  sickness ;  but  soap  and 
water,  ventilation,  drainage,  disinfection,  and  a  proper  diet 
will.  The  old  superstitions  are  not  all  dead  yet ;  but  they 
are  sickening,  and  some  of  them  are  gone  ;  and  by  the 
grace  of  God,  working  through  those  who  love  Him  and 


22  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

strive  to  do  His  commandments,  not  as  taught  by  human 
churches  and  effete  theology,  but  as  gathered  from  His 
ever  open  and  never-changing  book  of  revelations,  Nature, 
they  will  ultimately  all  be  buried,  and  the  world  be  freer, 
better,  purer  for  it.  And  all  of  us,  long  since  passed 
away,  with  our  eyes  opened  to  higher  truths  than  we  may 
know  in  this  world  now,  forgetting  all  past  differences  of 
creed,  will  rejoice  that  the  kingdom  of  God,  not  of  the 
Church,  has  come  at  last  to  man. 

But  there  were  other  influences  than  those  just  referred 
to  at  work  to  make  it  impossible  that  the  Church  should 
not  have  stayed  progress  and  improvement  of  every  sort. 

These  are  indicated  in  the  following  passage  from  Dar- 
win's Descent  of  Man  V 

"Who  can  positively  say  why  the  Spanish  Nation,  so  dominant  at  one 
time,  has  been  distanced  in  the  race.  The  awakening  of  the  Nations  of 
Europe  from  the  dark  ages  is  a  still  more  perplexing  problem.  At  this  early 
period,  as  Mr.  Galton  has  remarked,  almost  all  the  men  of  gentle  nature, 
those  given  to  meditation  or  culture  of  the  mind,  had  no  refuge  except  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Church,  which  demanded  celibacy  :  and  this  could  hardly  have 
failed  to  have  a  deterioriating  influence  on  each  successive  generation.  Dur- 
ing the  same  period  the  Holy  Inquisition  selected  with  extreme  care  the 
freest  and  boldest  men  in  order  to  burn  or  imprison  them.  In  Spain  alone 
some  of  the  best  men— those  who  doubted  and  questioned,  and  without 
doubting  and  questioning  there  can  be  no  progress — were  eliminated  during 
three  centuries  at  the  rate  of  a  thousand  a  year." 

Talent,  genius,  bravery,  nobility,  gentleness,  all  of  our 
good  qualities  and  propensities,  are  as  transmissible  from 
father  to  son  as  are  those  that  are  bad  ;  and  these  two  in- 
stitutions of  the  Church,  celibacy  for  the  priests  and  the 
Inquisition  for  the  laity,  cut  off  the  stream  of  good  influ- 
ences while  the  bad  flowed  steadily  on. 

And  this  does  not  reflect  on  the  character  of  the  men 
1  Vol.  i.,  pp.  171,  172. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         2$ 

who  worked  this  fearful  harm  on  the  world  ;  it  was  the 
terrible  nature  of  their  creed.  Believing,  as  they  did,  that 
celibacy  was  a  virtue  and  that  heresy  was  the  worst  of  all 
crimes  and  forever  damned  those  who  were  guilty  of  it, 
what  wonder  that  they  insisted  on  the  one  and  tried  to 
check  the  other,  and  used,  to  further  their  plans,  the  means 
with  which  Jehovah  was  wont  to  scourge  His  enemies.  As 
Mr.  Underwood  remarks:  "It  is  easy  to  believe  Llorente 
when  he  says  that  the  founders  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition 
were  men  whose  characters  were  unstained  by  vice,  and 
who  acted  from  an  earnest  desire  to  save  the  souls  of 
men." 

It  is  claimed  that  the  Church  has  been  a  boon  to  woman, 
and  that  it  has  immensely  ameliorated  her  condition.  This, 
too,  is  a  mistake.  Woman's  condition,  like  man's,  has  been 
bettered  by  civilization  and  in  spite  of  the  Church.  The 
fundamental  fact  in  Scripture  with  reference  to  woman  is 
that  through  her  came  sin  into  the  world.  "Adam  was 
first  formed,  then  Eve.  And  Adam  was  not  deceived,  but 
the  woman  being  deceived  was  in  the  transgression."  ' 

For  this  reason  woman  was  to  be  in  every  way  subject 
to  man.  She  was  not  to  speak  in  public,  she  was  to  yield 
implicit  obedience  to  her  husband,  and  man  was  made  for 
the  glory  of  God,  while  woman  was  made  for  the  use  of 
man.  Her  wishes  were  not  to  be  consulted  in  the  choice 
of  a  husband.  She  could  be  captured  and  put  to  the  basest 
uses,  and  by  the  direct  permission  of  God.  She  was  an 
abject  slave  to  man,  submitting  herself  to  him  as  to  her 
God — and  except  as  man  has  freed  her,  she  so  remains. 

I  am  not  an  advocate  of  "  woman's  rights,"  so  called  ;  I 
believe  in  the  division  of  labor,  and  think  woman's  sphere 
is  different,  in  a  great  degree,  from  man's.     But   I  think 

1  i  Tim.   ii.,    13,    14. 


24  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

she  should  be  so  educated  as  to  bring  out  the  full  power 
and  strength  of  her  mind  and  body,  and  should  be  as  free 
to  discuss  matters  affecting  her  interest,  and  to  express 
her  views  thereon,  as  man.  And  above  all  she  should  be 
relieved  from  the  cowardly  reproach  of  ages,  "  the  woman 
tempted  me,  and  I  did  eat."  If  we  will  believe  the  story, 
let  us  be  men  enough  to  bear  the  responsibilities  of  our 
own  acts,  and  not  try,  like  cringing  school-boys,  to  shift 
the  blame  on  helpless  woman. 

I  have  heard  it  frequently  urged  that  we  should  not  judge 
the  Christian  religion  by  the  acts  of  its  adherents  in  the 
early  days  of  the  Church  ;  that  all  men  were  then  barbarous 
to  some  extent,  and  that  it  took  time  for  Christianity  to 
civilize  them.  A  tree  must  be  judged  by  its  fruit.  We 
can  only  judge  the  Church  by  its  effect  on  mankind,  and 
certainly  it  is  fair  to  show  its  effect  on  its  chief  supporters 
and  its  own  officers  and  priests. 

We  have  seen  the  excesses  which  they  committed  when 
they  held  undisputed  power,  and  we  have  seen  that  they 
became  more  moderate  only  in  proportion  as  they  lost  their 
power ;  and  that  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  Church 
is  actuated  yet  by  the  same  old  intolerant  spirit;  and  I 
close  this  branch  of  my  first  proposition  by  a  quotation  in 
point  from  Huxley's  Lay  Sermons,  p.  278. 

"  Who  shall  number  the  patient  and  earnest  seekers  after  truth,  from  the 
days  of  Galilee  until  now,  whose  lives  have  been  embittered  and  their  good 
name  blasted  by  the  mistaken  zeal  of  bibliolators  ?  Who  shall  count  the 
host  of  weaker  men  whose  sense  of  truth  has  been  destroyed  in  the  effort  to 
harmonize  impossibilities— whose  life  has  been  wasted  in  the  attempt  to 
force  the  generous  new  wine  of  science  into  the  old  bottles  of  Judaism, 
compelled  by  the  outcry  of  the  same  strong  party  ? 

"  It  is  true  that  if  philosophers  have  suffered,  their  cause  has  been  amply 
avenged.     Extinguished  theologians  lie  about  the  cradle  of  every  science  as 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         2$ 

the  strangled  snakes  beside  that  of  Hercules  ;  and  history  records  that  when- 
ever science  and  orthodoxy  have  been  fairly  opposed,  the  latter  has  been 
forced  to  retire  from  the  lists,  bleeding  and  crushed,  if  not  annihilated  ; 
scotched,  if  not  slain.  But  orthodoxy  is  the  Bourbon  of  the  world  of  thought. 
It  learns  not,  neither  can  it  forget ;  and  though  at  present  bewildered  and 
afraid  to  move,  it  is  as  willing  as  ever  to  insist  that  the  first  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis contains  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  sound  science,  and  to  visit  with 
such  petty  thunderbolts  as  its  half-paralyzed  hands  can  hurl,  those  who 
refuse  to  degrade  nature  to  the  level  of  primitive  Judaism."' 

We  have  thus  seen  how,  and  why,  the  Church  has  dis- 
couraged the  study  of  nature,  and  has  sought  to  suppress 
the  use  of  reason,  thereby  checking  progress  and  retard- 
ing civilization ;  and  that  it  still  retains  the  same  tenden- 
cies, though,  on  account  of  the  gradual  emancipation  of 
man's  mind,  by  skepticism  and  free-thought,  from  the 
slavery  imposed  by  his  superstitious  fears,  its  power  is 
materially  lessened. 

(b.)  It  now  remains  to  go  a  little  further,  and  to  show 
that  so  long  as  the  Church  insists  that  belief  in  any  creed 
or  dogma  is  necessary  to  salvation,  so  long  must  it  con- 
tinue to  exert,  in  the  future,  as  in  the  past  and  present, 
a  baleful  influence  on  mankind,  and  to  drive  many  to 
despair  and  ruin. 

In  order  to  be  perfectly  clear,  it  will  be  best,  I  think,  to 
examine,  somewhat  in  detail,  but  rapidly,  how  belief,  of 
the  kind  being  considered,  originates,  how  it  is  main- 
tained, and  how  the  doctrine  of  its  importance  works 
harm  ;  for  knowing  its  origin  we  can  the  better  judge  of 
its  correctness  and  consequent  importance,  and  if  it  be 
found  to  be  incorrect,  and  therefore  the  very  reverse  of 
important,  we  will  the  more  fully  appreciate  the  error  of  a 
system  which  makes  belief  a  necessary  preliminary  to 
salvation. 


26  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

Impressions  made  upon  the  infant  mind,  growing  with 
our  growth,  increasing  with  our  strength,  are  the  most 
tenacious  we  have  ;  and  even  when  we  think  we  have 
gotten  rid  of  them,  that  they  are  finally  effaced,  we  find 
that  they  have  left  a  scar,  like  that  of  a  badly  healed 
wound,  which  sometimes  breaks  out  afresh. 

Among  the  strongest  of  our  instincts  (and  surely  the 
noblest)  is  love  of,  and  respect  for,  our  parents.  The  child 
looks  up  to  father  and  mother,  as  father  and  mother  look 
up  to  God.  One  or  the  other  is  appealed  to  for  informa- 
tion, for  sympathy,  for  help,  for  he  has  unlimited 
confidence  in  their  knowledge,  their  affection,  their 
power ;  and  though  experience  comes  later  to  show 
that  knowledge  and  power  were  overestimated,  their 
affection  still  remains  undoubted  and  unchanged,  and, 
as  it  should,  casts  a  sacred,  holy,  charm  over  all  they  said 
and  did. 

Again,  the  child  is  like  primitive  man,  certainly  no 
further  advanced  in  mental  characteristics  or  powers.  He 
sees,  as  saw  primitive  man,  effects  resulting  from  unknown 
causes,  and,  as  with  primitive  man,  his  growing  brain  asks 
"why?"  Why  does  the  sun  shine?  Why  does  it  rain? 
What  is  the  awe-inspiring  lightning,  and  the  still  more 
fearful  thunder?  What  is  the  wind,  and  why  does  it 
blow?  What  holds  up  the  stars?  Why  does  it  get  dark? 
What,  and  why,  are  pain,  and  sickness,  and  death  ? 

As  primitive  man,  when  questioned  similarly  by  his 
thoughts,  had  gradually,  if  not  solved  these  problems,  at 
least  quieted  his  mind,  by  at  first  personalizing  the  forces 
of  nature,  and  later  on,  when  they  were  recognized  as 
powers,  not  persons,  by  putting  them  under  the  control 
of  the  personalities  he  had  thus  imagined  ;  and  guided  by 
experience,  having  no  other  teacher,  since  he  had  come  to 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.  2J 

recognize  the  necessity  of  a  ruler  among  men,  had  as- 
sumed that  there  must  be,  and  hence  was,  a  superior  and 
supreme  personality  in  command  of  all  the  rest  ;  and  so, 
by  slow  degrees,  had  built  up  a  theological  system, 
founded  at  first  on  his  fancies  alone,  and  subsequently 
merely  modified  as  he  learned  to  use  his  reason ;  and  as 
this  system,  changing  its  dress  as  men  changed  their 
notions,  the  old  gods  and  goddesses  transformed  into 
saints  of  either  sex,  shorn  of  much  of  their  power,  but 
still  possessing  some,  or  else,  losing  their  personality,  be- 
coming attributes  of  the  supreme  God,  has  come  down  to 
our  own  times  essentially  the  same  old  idea,  modified  in 
detail  alone  ;  so  the  father,  under  the  domination  of  these 
inherited  ideas,  answers  the  queries  of  the  child  as  primi- 
tive man  answered  his  own  aspirations  for  knowledge,  his 
own  yearning  for  the  unknown — perhaps  the  unknowable 
— by  referring  all  phenomena  to  a  supernatural  personal 
cause,  individualized  as  God,  telling  him  that  all  things 
may  be  explained  as  the  acts  of  such  God  furthering  His 
schemes  of  love  and  mercy,  or  of  hatred  and  revenge  ;  for 
this  God  of  his  is  very  human  in  his  nature,  and  is  subject 
not  only  to  the  noblest,  but  also  to  the  basest,  passions  of 
man  ;  and  proceeds  to  teach  him  how  to  win  God's  love, 
how  to  avert  God's  anger  ;  in  other  words,  lays  before 
him,  by  degrees,  the  Church's  creed. 

All  men  are  superstitious,  some  to  a  greater  some  to  a 
less  degree.  I  do  not  think  there  exists  one  without  super- 
stition in  some  form — even  if  it  be  only  a  belief  in  "  luck," 
and  ways  and  means  of  changing  it.  The  germ  is  there, 
though  in  many  cases  strength  of  will,  or  reason,  or  ex- 
perience, or  ridicule  may  have  modified  many  of  its  ex- 
pressions, and  wellnigh,  but  not  quite,  destroyed  itself. 
But  in  the  child  it  is  in  its  full  force,  and  the  theological 


28  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

system  unfolded  to  him  appeals  directly  to  this  strong 
instinct,  and  with  it  aiding  the  teachings  of  those  in 
whom  he  has  the  most  implicit  confidence,  how  could  it 
be  otherwise  than  that  he  should  receive  as  undoubted, 
undoubtable  truth  all  that  comes  to  him  from  such  a 
source  and  under  such  circumstances  ? 

And  with  most  Christians,  in  fact  with  a  majority  so 
vast  as  to  approach  unanimity,  this  is  the  only  founda- 
tion on  which  their  faith  is  built, — the  single  source  of 
their  belief.  Think  of  it.  Our  whole  hope  of  the  eter- 
nal future  based  on  nothing  more  substantial  than  the 
teachings  of  those  who  knew  no  more  than  we,  and  who, 
like  us,  and  like  their  teachers,  believe  only  because 
taught  to  do  so  while  children,  or  in  the  trusting  mental 
condition  of  children,  and,  having  never  been  taught  dif- 
ferently, have  never  questioned  what  they  thought  un- 
questionable. 

I  do  not  mean  to  exaggerate.  I  do  not  think  that  I 
do.  Let  any  one  ask  himself  why  he  believes,  and  in 
nearly  every  case  I  am  confident  the  answer,  if  intelligent 
and  sincere,  will  prove  that  I  am  right.  In  nearly  every 
instance  he  will  find  that  the  ultimate  reason  is  that  he 
has  been  taught  to  so  believe  by  those  in  whom  he  had 
absolute  confidence — his  parents  or  his  guardians  in  early 
life,  his  teachers  and  clergy  later  on.  And  the  answer 
will  be  the  same  though  in  his  turn  he  may  now  be 
parent,  guardian,  teacher,  or  priest.  For  even  those  who 
have  investigated  fully,  as  they  think,  the  subject  since 
they  have  become  of  maturer  years,  will  find,  by  rigid 
self-examination,  that  their  early  beliefs  and  training  have 
been  all-important  factors  in  their  conclusions,  that  the 
alpha  of  their  studies  and  the  omega  of  their  results,  is 
FAITH,  which   I  conceive   to   be   a  blind    reliance  on  the 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         29 

views  and  assertions  of  others,  and  the  utter  suppression 
of  reason.1 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood.  I  do  not  believe 
that  all  intelligence,  wisdom,  or  knowledge  is  confined  to 
those  who  doubt.  I  am  perfectly  well  aware  that  some 
of  the  most  brilliant  intellects,  the  wisest  minds,  and  the 
most  learned  men  the  world  has  ever  known  have  been, 
and  still  are,  conscientiously  enlisted  on  the  side  of  the 

1  This  definition  of  faith  seems  to  have  aroused  the  indignation  of  the 
learned  Bishop  who  did  me  the  honor  to  discuss  with  me  the  points  presented 
in  this  argument.     I  give  his  criticism  : 

"It  is  related  of  the  famous  Don  Quixote  that,  lance  in  hand,  he  furi- 
ously attacked  what  he  imagined  to  be  a  hostile  giant.  But  alas  !  the  foe 
of  flesh  and  blood  proved  to  be  a  windmill.  This  achievement  of  the  knight 
of  the  rueful  countenance  is  certainly  ludicrous  enough.  But  I  don't  think 
it  is  half  so  laughable  as  your  gallant  charges  on  'faith.'  You  define  faith 
to  be  a  blind  reliance  on  the  views  and  assertions  of  others,  and  the  utter 
suppression  of  the  latter,  i.  e.,  reason.  And  then  you  draw  your  gallant 
weapon  against  this  ugly  giant.  But  alas  !  Sir,  it  is  only  a  windmill. 
For  a  windmill  is  about  as  much  like  an  iron-clad  knight  as  your  definition 
is  like  to  Catholic  faith.  You  say  I  must  use  my  own  reason.  Certainly  ; 
we  don't  object  to  that.  And  don't  you  think  it  might  have  been  using 
your  reason  to  considerable  advantage  had  you  first  learned  what  faith  really 
was  before  penning  such  a  caricature  of  it  ? 

"  Faith  has  been  held  to  be  the  most  sacred  of  things  by  such  intellectual 
giants  as  a  Copernicus,  Michael-Angelo,  Raphael,  Dante,  and  hosts  of 
others  whose  names  are  immortal  in  science  and  art.  These  mighty  geniuses 
never  for  a  moment  dreamed  that  faith  is  a  '  blind  reliance  on  the  views  and 
assertions  of  others,  and  the  utter  suppression  of  reason  '  ;  for  faith,  instead 
of  being  the  '  utter  suppression  of  reason,'  is  reason's  highest  act." 

To  which  I  replied  : 

We  now  come  to  Don  Quixote,  and  his  windmill,  to  whom  and  which 
you  are  kind  enough  to  liken  me  and  my  definition  of  faith. 

At  the  time  I  had  no  intention  of  giving  a  regular  definition  of  faith  ;  if  I 
had,  I  would  probably  have  given  the  famous  one  of  Hood  in  his  Up  the 
Rhine.  It  is  contained  in  a  letter  from  Martha  Penny  to  Rebecca  Page, 
and  is  as  follows  : 

' '  But  as  a  party  you  don't  know  says,  what 's  faith  ?    As  for  beleavin  what 's 


30  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

Church.  But  I  do  believe,  and  this  is  what  I  wish  to 
convey,  that  such  men  either  have  never  properly  investi- 
gated in  the  pure  spirit  of  truth,  and  nothing  else,  or,  if 
with  the  proper  spirit,  have  started  at  the  wrong  point ; 
have  taken  for  granted  as  an  unquestioned  fact  something 
taught  them  in  their  early  youth,  but  which  is  really  the 
very  point  at  issue,  and,  starting  from  false  premises,  have, 
by  correct  reasoning,  been  naturally  brought  to  wrong 
conclusions. 

That  such  men,  not  only  wise  but  good,  have  believed, 
and  still  believe,  the  Church's  creed,  proves  nothing, 
though  it  entitles  their  belief  to  a  respectful  considera- 

only  plain  and  probberble  and  nateral,  says  he,  its  no  beleaf  at  all.  But 
wen  you  beleav  in  things  totally  impossible,  and  direct  contrary  to  nater, 
that  is  real,  true,  downright  faith,  and  to  be  sure,  so  it  is." 

And  this  reminds  me  of  a  sermon  which  a  friend  assures  me  he  heard 
you  preach,  in  which,  while  speaking  of  the  sacrifices  which  the  Church  de- 
manded of  her  children,  you  said  (as  he  recollects  it)  that  it  even  "  demanded 
the  sacrifice  of  our  intellects,"  instancing  the  belief  in  the  real  presence. 

But  after  carefully  considering  your  objections,  I  am  disposed  to  adopt,  in 
cold  blood,  what  I  then  said  in  my  haste,  and  define  faith  as  "  a  blind  re- 
liance on  the  views  and  assertions  of  others,  and  the  utter  suppression  of 
reason."  There,  Sir,  is  the  windmill,  and  you  will  excuse  me  if  I  turn 
your  simile  against  you.  Don  Quixote  did  not  make  windmills  ;  others 
made  them,  and  he  attacked  them,  as  you  do,  and  I  really  think  you  have 
been  as  successful  as  he,  no  more.  If  my  definition  is  wrong,  why  have  you 
not  given  me  a  better  ?  You  tell  me  that  a  number  of  "  intellectual  giants  " 
have  held  faith  "  to  be  the  most  sacred  of  things,"  but  that  does  not  define 
it.  You  further  say  that  they  did  not  regard  it  as  "a  blind  reliance  on  the 
views  and  assertions  of  others,  and  the  utter  suppression  of  reason,"  and  you 
add  "for  faith,  instead  of  being  the  utter  suppression  of  reason,  is  reason's 
highest  act."  But  why  not  define  it?  I  do  not  know  what  the  gentlemen 
whose  names  you  give  thought  about  faith,  nor  do  I  care.  If  their  views  were 
wrong,  they  ought  to  be  suppressed  ;  if  they  were  right,  they  were  right, 
not  because  they  held  them,  but  because  of  the  reasons  which  induced  them 
to  hold  them.  Some  eminently  respectable  gentlemen  have  believed  that 
the  earth  was  stationary,  and  that  the  sun  revolved  around  it  ;  indeed  I  am 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  3 1 

tion  and  a  careful  examination.  And  that  consideration 
and  examination  I  have  given  it,  and,  so  far  as  I  have 
been  able  to  ascertain,  the  basis  of  their  belief,  the  foun- 
dation of  their  creed,  is  faith,  as  I  have  defined  it,  ac- 
quired as  I  have  pointed  out. 

And  yet  the  faith  of  such  men,  so  acquired  and  main- 
tained, is  used  as  proof  of  the  truth  of  their  belief! 
Whereas,  to  restate  with  greater  clearness  what  I  have 
just  said,  the  fact  that  any  one  believes  or  disbelieves  a 
system  is  not,  per  se,  any  evidence  that  the  system  is 
either  correct  or  incorrect.  It  may  be  evidence  that  it  is 
not  to  be  lightly  rejected  or  accepted  ;   but  the  reasons 

not  sure  but  that  some  of  the  popes,  and  other  eminent  luminaries  of  the 
Church,  so  held  ;  but  their  belief  did  not  make  it  so.  Belief  is  now  known 
not  to  influence  facts  ;  indeed  it  is  doubted  if  the  tractile  or  repellant  power 
of  faith  can  any  longer  remove  a  mountain,  except  figuratively,  and  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  mountains  of  fact,  reason,  or  philosophy  are  to  faith  as  if 
they  were  not. 

But,  seriously,  I  would  like  to  know  what  is  wrong  about  my  definition. 
Let  us  examine  it.  It  certainly  is  a  belief  in  something  of  which  we  have 
no  demonstration,  or  it  would  be  knowledge — not  faith.  If  we  have  no 
demonstration  of  it,  it  would  seem  to  be  a  belief  in  the  opinions  or  asser- 
tions of  others,  and  any  belief  in  the  opinions  or  assertions  of  another,  with- 
out other  evidence,  is  blind  reliance,  even  though  we  only  give  that  sort  of 
confidence  to  people  whom  we  think  we  can  trust  ;  and  the  only  possible  use 
I  can  see  of  reason  in  the  matter  is  in  determining  upon  whom  we  shall 
rely  ;  and  in  matters  of  religious  faith  (and  that  is  the  sort  I  am  speaking  of) 
that  has  generally  been  determined  for  us  when  we  were  children  and 
could  n't  help  ourselves. 

So,  really,  I  cannot  see  how  faith  can  be  reason's  "  highest  act,"  except 
on  the  principle  that  the  highest  act  of  a  king  is  abdication. 

To  this  the  Bishop  has  never  replied  ;  so  I  adhere  to  my  definition  until  I 
can  find  a  better  one.  Indeed  the  language  ascribed  to  Jesus  (Matt,  xviii., 
13),  "except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  would  seem  to  be  an  authoritative 
enunciation  of  the  principle  that  inability  to  reason  is  essential  to  a  perfect 
fulness  of  faith. 


32  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

why  such  a  one  believes  or  rejects  are  of  much  more 
importance  than  the  mere  fact  that  he  so  believes  or  re- 
jects. And  upon  the  strength  of  the  reasons  for  belief  or 
disbelief,  not  on  the  belief  or  disbelief  itself,  should  the 
case  rest.  And  when  we  are  told  that  we  must  believe 
or  reject  any  doctrine  because  believed  or  rejected  by 
another,  or  many  others,  whom  we  admire,  love,  and 
respect  for  both  mental  and  moral  qualities,  if  it  be  a 
matter  of  any  importance,  our  self-respect  and  our  duty 
to  ourselves  and  others  should  require  us  to  ascertain 
WHY  such  person,  or  persons,  so  held.  Any  other  course 
would  be  to  surrender  our  individuality,  to  dethrone  our 
reason.  And  the  WHY  we  have  just  examined,  and  have 
found  it  to  be  the  faith  of  a  little  child. 

But  notwithstanding  its  origin  and  its  want  of  real 
foundation,  such  faith  is  claimed  to  be  proven  true  by  the 
fact  that  so  many  live  and  die  content,  nay,  happy,  in  its 
possession.  Especially  is  this  urged  of  the  calm  beatitude 
of  so  many  dying  Christians. 

But  if  this  proves  anything,  it  proves  too  much,  for  ex- 
actly the  same  argument  may  legitimately  be  used,  and 
with  precisely  the  same  effect,  in  support  of  any  and 
every  religion  actually  and  earnestly  believed. 

And  so,  indeed,  of  all  the  arguments  based  on  faith,  or 
inner  consciousness,  or  soul-intelligence,  or  gratified  spir- 
itual aspirations.  They  are  all  as  applicable  to  one 
sincere  religion  as  to  another,  and  no  more  so.  If  the 
Christian  religion  can  be  so  proved,  so  can  any  other,  and 
perhaps  more  conclusively  ;  for  it  is  notorious  that  the 
adherents  of  many  of  the  rival  religions  of  the  world  are 
far  more  earnest,  far  more  sincere  in  their  absolute  faith, 
far  more  conscientious  in  the  observance  of  their  rites 
and  ceremonies,  and  far  more  self-sacrificing   in  life   and 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         33 

property,  than  their  more  civilized  Christian  brethren. 
But  the  honesty  and  sincerity  of  its  votaries  cannot  estab- 
lish the  truth  of  any  religion.  Faith  may  be  very  satis- 
factory and  comforting  to  its  possessor,  but  it  is  not  proof 
— it  is  not  even  evidence. 

Having  thus  rapidly  traced  what  seems  to  be  the  origin 
of  belief  and,  incidentally,  its  value  as  evidence,  let  us  see 
what  importance  the  Church  attaches  to  it. 

Under  the  teachings  of  the  orthodox  Christian  Church 
belief  in  certain  dogmas  is  essential  to  salvation.  It  is 
not  necessary  now  to  consider  what  are  these  particular 
dogmas  ;  we  will  consider,  at  present,  only  one — the 
Divinity  of  Jesus.  This,  of  course,  includes  the  Incarna- 
tion, the  Death  of  Atonement,  and  the  Resurrection. 

Belief  of  this  is  absolutely  necessary. 

41  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned."     Mark  xvi.,  16. 

"  And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the 
Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up  ;  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  eternal  life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave 
His  only  begotten  Son  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish 
but  have  everlasting  life.  For  God  sent  not  His  Son  into  the  world  to  con- 
demn the  world  :  but  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved.  He  that 
believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned,  but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned 
already,  because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son 
of  God."  John  iii.,  14,  18.  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlast- 
ing life  ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life  :  but  the  wrath 
of  God  abideth  on  him."     John  iii.,  36. 

Texts  need  not  be  multiplied,  nor  sermons  quoted,  to 
establish  this  point.  So  far  as  I  am  aware  it  is  not  denied 
by  any  of  the  orthodox.  I  believe  that  some  of  the  more 
liberal  say  that  such  belief  is  not  necessary  for  those  who 
have  never  heard  of  Jesus,  nor  had  the  truth  preached  to 
them,  and  such  may  be  saved  without  so  believing.     I  do 


34  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

not  know  the  scriptural  authority  for  this  idea  ;  I  suspect 
that  civilization  is  reading  a  little  more  humanity  into  the 
creed.  But  it  does  not  matter,  for  all  are  agreed,  as  I  un- 
derstand it,  that  so  far  as  those  who  have  heard  the  gos- 
pel are  concerned,  such  belief  is  essential ;  or,  in  other 
words,  that  if  one  is  told  the  fact  and  rejects  it,  he  is  lost. 
And  I  may  here  parenthetically  remark,  that  if  the  more 
liberal  idea  be  true — that  is,  that  belief  is  essential  only  to 
those  who  have  heard  the  truth,  it  is  a  conclusive  argu- 
ment against  sending  missionaries  to  the  heathen  :  for 
since  it  must  necessarily  be  that  many  who  hear  will  not 
believe,  sending  them  missionaries  is  to  do  good  to  none 
(since  they  could  be  saved  without  them),  but  to  send 
damnation  to  many. 

But  apart  from  the  scriptural  texts  pointing  in  that 
direction,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  absolutely  necessary  that 
the  Church,  as  an  organization,  should  hold  to  the  harsher 
doctrine  of  the  importance  and  necessity  of  belief,  without 
exception  of  any  kind.  If  morality  alone  will  save,  if 
belief  be  unimportant,  then  the  good  man  of  any  and  every 
creed,  or  of  no  creed  at  all,  will  be  as  surely  saved  as  the 
most  orthodox  and  bigoted  Christian,  and  the  Church  will 
have  become  confessedly  a  useless,  even  a  hurtful  institu- 
tion :  useless,  because  it  needs  no  ordained  or  anointed 
priest  to  teach  us  that  virtue,  for  itself  alone,  is  better  than 
vice;  hurtful,  because  it  drives  thousands  out  of  the  paths 
of  rectitude  by  insisting  that  they  cannot  be  really  good, 
really  acceptable  to  God,  cannot  be  saved,without  possess- 
ing what  it  would  then  have  admitted  to  be  an  unnecessary 
faith.  Therefore,  while  the  Church  must  teach  with  James 
that  faith  without  works  is  dead,  it  would  be  suicidal  for  it 
to  admit  that  works  without  faith  may  be  life.  As  horrible 
as  I  purpose  to  show  the  doctrine  to  be,  it  must  insist  on 


THE    TR  U  TH  OF  DOGMA  TIC  CHRIS  TIA  NITY.         35 

the  essentiality  of  belief,  be  the  consequences  what  they 
may. 

Now  belief  is  not  dependent  on  volition.  We  accept, 
without  examination,  many  things  as  true,  but  this  is  not 
belief.  Belief,or  mental  conviction,  is  the  result  of  evidence 
and  reason,  and  is  involuntary.  No  one  can  believe  or 
disbelieve  by  the  mere  exertion  of  his  will.  When  one  in 
whom  we  have  confidence  tells  us  something  which  is  not 
contrary  to  our  experience,  not  inconsistent  with  our  rea- 
son, we  may  believe  it  because  of  those  facts  satisfying 
our  minds,  but  not  because  we  wish  to.  But  if  the  state- 
ment is  unusual,  apparently  unreasonable,  new  to  our  ex- 
perience, and  of  sufficient  importance  to  arouse  our  inter- 
est, we  examine  into  the  facts,  and  as  the  facts  and  reasons 
are,  so  will  our  belief  be  :  all  of  us  have,  at  times,  been 
compelled  by  evidence  to  believe  many  unpleasant  things 
which  we  would  gladly  not  have  believed,  and  no  amount 
of  mere  volition  could  control  our  mental  convictions,  and 
we  believed  in  spite  of  ourselves. 

Having  examined  into  how  faith  comes  and  is  sustained, 
and  having  shown  that,  although  belief  is  an  involuntary 
condition  of  the  mind,  the  Church  insists  on  its  import- 
ance, let  us  see  how  doubt  may  arise  and  destroy  belief, 
and  what  the  Church  teaches  may  flow  from  such  de- 
struction. 

Most  people  go  through  life  quietly,  satisfied  with  the 
creeds  of  their  fathers,  thinking  very  little  about  it,  save  in 
a  very  general  way,  and  the  less  they  think  the  better  they 
are  satisfied.  But  some,  with  a  realizing  sense  of  the  im- 
portance of  the  matter,  unwilling  to  rest  their  eternal 
future  entirely  on  others'  views,  begin  to  examine  for 
themselves  their  Church's  somewhat  voluminous  creed, 
having  determined  that  the  most  important  of  all  their 


36  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

affairs  shall  no  longer  be  the  only  one  about  which  they 
do  not  think,  and  thought  on  this  subject  must  bring 
doubt. 

They  have  been  taught,  for  instance,  that  there  is  one 
Supreme  God  ;  that  He  is  omnipotent,  omniscient,  omni- 
present, and  eternal — without  beginning  as  without  end  ; 
that  He  is  all-good,  all-just,  and  all-love  ;  that  He  is 
our  loving  Father,  and  we  His  wayward  children  ;  that 
He  so  loved  us  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  and  well 
beloved  Son  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  good.  They  believe  all 
this  with  an  absolute  faith,  and  have  so  believed  for  many 
years.  But  now,  having  begun  to  think,  they  see  that  if 
all  this  be  true  some  of  the  rest  of  their  creed  must  be 
false  ;  that  if  God  possessed  all  the  attributes  ascribed  to 
Him  He  could  not  have  been  angry  with  man,  and  would 
not  have  resolved  to  exterminate  the  race  He  Himself  had 
created  as  it  was,  for  anger  necessarily  implies  discontent, 
and  discontent  can  only  mean  that  matters  have  not  turned 
out  to  suit  Him— and  it  is  absurd  to  think  of  a  supreme, 
omnipotent,  omnipresent,  omniscient,  but  disappointed, 
God, — and  yet  if  He  was  angry  with  man  and  "  repented  " 
(that  is  the  word  used  in  the  sacred  text)  that  He  had  made 
him,  that  is  what  He  must  have  been. 

They  further  reflect  that  if  possessed  of  all  these  attri- 
butes He  could  have  demonstrated  His  love  for  us,  and 
could  have  changed  the  heart  of  man,  and  have  made 
him  all-good,  by  the  mere  exercise  of  His  volition  ;  and 
as  there  was  so  simple,  sure,  and  obvious  a  method  of 
accomplishing  His  supposed  purpose,  they  begin  to  doubt 
whether  He  would  have  employed  a  plan  so  complex,  so 
utterly  at  variance  with  and  contrary  to  His  usual  methods 
as  seen  in  nature,  so  cruel,  so  unnecessary,  and,  as  they 
hear   their  clergy  so  constantly  bewailing  the  world   as 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         37 

growing  worse,  they  must  also  conclude,  so  ineffectual  as 
the  Incarnation. 

They  are  utterly  unable  to  conceive  that  of  the  many 
plans  which  suggest  themselves  to  their  finite  minds  and 
limited  wisdom,  and  which  would  surely  have  succeeded 
when  backed  by  the  unlimited  power  of  the  Almighty, 
none  would  have  occurred  to  Infinite  Wisdom  itself,  or, 
having  so  occurred  to  it,  would  have  been  rejected  in  favor 
of  a  plan  that  Omniscience  must  have  known  would  never 
succeed, — at  least  until  untold  millions  of  His  children's 
souls  should  have  been  forever  lost. 

Another  thought  is  here  suggested.1 

There  could  have  been  no  necessity  for  any  scheme  of 
SALVATION  had  there  not  been  first  a  scheme  of  DAMNA- 
TION. This  is  inevitable.  One  must  be  in  danger  before 
there  is  any  necessity  to  save  him.  Was  God  the  author 
of  both  schemes  ?  Or  is  there  another  Being  more  pow- 
erful for  evil  than  God  is  for  good  ?  If,  as  they  are  told, 
the  world  is  getting  worse,  notwithstanding  the  scheme  of 
salvation  ;  if,  as  they  are  further  taught,  more  are  damned 
than  saved,  the  scheme  of  damnation  is  more  successful 
than  the  counter  scheme  of  salvation,  and  the  author  of 
the  first  more  powerful  than  the  author  of  the  second. 
Or,  if  God  be  the  author  of  both,  when  they  are  return- 
ing thanks  for  the  ineffectual  second  scheme,  what  are 
they  to  say  about  the  successful  first  ? 

These  and  other  kindred  thoughts  cause  them  to 
doubt,  and  their  doubts  lead  to  investigation  ;  so  they 
look  to  the  evidence  adduced  in  support  of  the  whole 
extraordinary  system. 

They  admit,  to  the  fullest  extent,  that  anything  which 
God    does,  or  has   done,   must   be  right ;    could   not   be 

1  By  my  friend  Dr.  Richard  J.   Nunn. 


38  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

otherwise.  But  before  they  admit  as  right  that  which  is 
so  utterly  at  variance  with  their  reason,  they  must  be 
fully  satisfied  that  God  really  did  it. 

It  is  not  necessary,  now,  to  follow  any  of  our  doubters 
through  his  investigations.  We  will  investigate  for  our- 
selves farther  on.  It  is  not  even  necessary  to  my  present 
purpose  to  assume  that  the  conclusions  at  which  he  ar- 
rives are  correct ;  it  will  be  sufficient  to  assume  that  they 
are  honest ;  and  that  as  the  result  of  long,  patient,  faithful, 
and  earnest  investigations,  our  doubter,  as  so  many  others 
have  done,  finds  his  doubts  resolved  into  the  certainty, 
so  far  as  his  own  mind  is  concerned,  that  there  is  abso- 
lutely no  foundation  in  fact  for  the  dogma  of  the  Incar- 
nation, the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  whole  system ; 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  not  God,  nor  the  son,  in  the 
sense  of  offspring,  of  God  ;  that  he  never  claimed  to  be 
such,  nor  did  others  claim  it  for  him  until  long  after 
his  death. 

As  I  have  said,  it  is  entirely  immaterial,  so  far  as  the 
point  now  being  discussed  is  concerned,  whether  he  is 
right  or  wrong,  so  long  as  he  is  sincere.  He  has  tried  to 
believe  his  Church's  creed— would  much  prefer  to— for 
the  sake  of  peace  and  the  good-will  of  his  fellows,  but  he 
cannot,  and  he  is  too  honest  to  pretend. 

Now,  under  the  teachings  of  orthodoxy  what  might 
result  from  this? 

Let  us  suppose  two  persons  :  the  one,  A,  upright,  moral, 
honest,  honorable,  charitable,  industrious,  sober,  and,  in 
all  respects,  a  useful,  respected  citizen,  but  who,  after 
careful  examination  of  the  matter,  has  reached  the  con- 
clusions just  referred  to  as  reached  by  our  doubter.  He 
observes  all  the  ethics  of  the  best  and  most  rigid  Church- 
man,  and    in  his  life  is   a  model   for  all  ;  but  he  cannot 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.  39 

believe  certain  doctrines,  belief  in  which  is  declared  by  the 
Church  to  be  absolutely  essential  to  salvation. 

On  the  other  hand,  B  is  all  that  is  vile,  a  thorough 
criminal  in  thought  and  deed,  out  of  the  pale  of  the 
Church  and  of  decent  society. 

A  prevents  B  from  committing  some  crime,  frustrates 
some  scheme  of  unlawful  money-getting,  or  of  revenge, 
and  so  incurs  B's  enmity.  B  lies  in  wait  for  him,  and  on 
some  dark  night  kills  him. 

If  the  Church  has  not  deceived  us,  if  this  matter  of  be- 
lief is  so  important,  so  necessary,  A,  the  just  man,  who 
never  did  a  wrong  act,  goes  at  once  to  a  cruel  and  endless 
doom,  his  only  crime  being  that  he  did  not  believe  what 
he  could  not  ;  damned  for  a  matter  beyond  his  own 
control. 

B  is  arrested,  tried,  convicted,  and  sentenced  to  death. 
In  the  seclusion  of  his  cell,  reflecting  over  his  past  life,  as 
his  end  draws  near  his  mind  reverts  to  his  innocent  child- 
hood when,  kneeling  at  his  mother's  feet,  his  baby-tongue 
first  learned  to  lisp  "  Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven." 
He  thinks  of  that  dear,  dear  mother  so  cruelly  neglected, 
dead,  perhaps,  from  grief  at  his  cause,  and  the  man's 
heart  is  softened,  and  he  bitterly  regrets,  nay,  sincerely 
repents,  his  past  misdeeds.  Wretched,  and  without  hope 
in  this  world,  but  with  his  mother's  unheeded,  though  not 
forgotten,  teachings  pointing  to  hope  and  happiness  in 
another  life  ;  with  some  good  priest  at  his  side  earnestly 
urging  the  same  cheerful  view  ;  without  any  knowledge  or 
ideas  of  his  own  on  the  subject,  and,  in  his  helpless  con- 
dition, clutching  at  anything  that  looks  like  hope  ;  he 
cannot  fail  to  accept  and  believe  that  which  so  coincides 
with  his  wishes,  and  of  which  he  knows  nothing  to  the 
contrary.     He  believes,  believes  sincerely,  and,  as   I  have 


40  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

said,  sincerely  repents,  and  so  dies,  and  goes  to  endless 
bliss,  while  his  recent  victim  is  writhing  in  hell. 

The  man  who  never  did  a  wrong  forever  punished — the 
man  who  never  did  a  right  forever  rewarded  ;  and  purely 
because  the  one  could  not  believe,  since  the  evidence  did 
not  convince  his  mind,  while  the  other  did  believe  merely 
because  he  knew  no  better.  Reason,  God's  chiefest  gift 
to  man,  thus  made  out  to  be  his  worst  enemy — for  the  use 
of  it  sends  to  hell,  while  its  suppression  leads  to  heaven. 

Can  we  wonder  that  so  many  men  refuse  to  accept  a 
creed  of  such  hideous  possibilities  ;  that  they  believe 
such  teachings  to  be  a  slander  against  the  Almighty,  and 
prefer  to  worship  God  in  their  hearts  alone  rather  than  to 
listen  to  the  vapid  utterances  of  a  theological  automaton 
who  either  has  not  the  brains  to  discover,  or  the  manhood 
to  avow,  the  errors  of  his  system  ? 

Nor  is  this  all  the  harm  contained  in  this  doctrine  that 
certain  beliefs  are  absolutely  essential  to  salvation.  Not 
only  may  it,  as  we  have  just  seen,  damn  the  righteous 
dead,  it  may  actually  drive  the  living  to  their  utter  ruin. 

When  one  first  discovers  that  he  does  not  really  believe 
some  cherished  tenet  of  his  Church,  something  which  it  is 
held  sacrilegious  to  even  doubt,  he  is  usually  shocked  at 
himself,  and  carefully  conceals  what  he  considers  his  back- 
sliding ;  most  probably  prays  that  his  faith  be  increased 
and  strengthened — prays  that  he  may  become  as  a  little 
child,  that  being,  as  we  have  seen,  the  most  favorable 
condition  for  faith — until  he  unexpectedly  finds  that  he  is 
not  alone  in  his  skepticism,  that  many,  if  not  most  of  his 
friends  have  very  much  the  same  doubts  in  their  hearts, 
but  to  be  expressed  only  under  the  seal  of  confidence, 
when,  gaining  courage  from  sympathy,  he  either  investi- 
gates the  whole  subject  fully  and  fearlessly,  and  so  becomes 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         4 1 

a  rationalist,  and,  ninety-nine  times  out  of  a  hundred,  an 
honest,  useful  member  of  society  ;  or,  hiding  his  doubts,  he 
becomes  a  hypocrite,  an  Amminadab  Sleek,  with  God  in 
his  lips  and  Satan  in  his  heart,  his  religion  but  a  cloak,  his 
piety  but  a  sham  ;  or,  as  is  very  likely  to  be  the  case,  by 
the  force  of  reaction,  from  being  a  devout,  earnest  Chris- 
tian, he  becomes  an  open  scorner,  sneering  at  all  virtue, 
because  some  are  hypocrites,  rejecting  all  because  some 
are  bad,  throwing  away  the  wheat  as  well  as  the  chaff ; 
and  so,  if  he  had  been  dependent  on  his  religion  for  his 
morality,  goes  to  the  bad  :  more  especially  if  he,  as  he 
probably  will,  still  has  a  lurking  belief  that  for  his  heresy 
he  is  to  be  eternally  damned  as  soon  as  he  leaves  this 
world  ;  for  in  that  case  he  is  apt  to  try  to  make  the  most 
of  this  life  of  which  he  is  certain  for  fear  of  that  of  which 
he  is  ignorant,  and,  with  the  dreaded  ban  of  the  Church 
upon  him,  an  outcast  among  his  fellows,  he  lives  with  no 
object  higher  than  the  present  gratification  of  his  passions 
and  dies  without  a  hope  for  the  future — wrecked,  here 
and  hereafter,  by  the  false  teachings  of  a  priesthood  who, 
while  claiming  to  be  but  the  followers  of  the  meek  and 
lowly  Jesus — "  poor  miserable  sinners  " — and  preaching 
humility  for  all,  are  in  reality  filled  with  an  intolerant 
pride  that  brooks  neither  contradiction  nor  doubt.  We 
must  agree  with  them  or  take  the  consequences,  the 
anathema  of  the  Church.  We  must  go  to  heaven  by  their 
road,  in  their  conveyance  ;  we  may  prefer  some  other 
route,  some  other  vehicle,  and  they  may  not  be  able  to 
show  why  our  way  is  not  as  good  as  theirs  ;  but  it  makes 
no  difference,  we  must  submit  our  reason  to  their  dicta, 
or  be  damned,  if  they  can  bring  it  about. 

And  how  could  it  be  otherwise  ?     The  system  teaches 
that  when  God  wished  to  communicate  with  man  He  did 


42  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

so  through  His  priests  ;  and  that  when  man  wished  to 
learn  anything  of  God  he  should  use  the  same  intermedi- 
aries as  the  only  source  of  information.  If  the  priests 
believe  what  they  teach  they  must  think  that  they  are 
very  near  to  God — His  ministers-plenipotentiary  and,  like 
the  ministers  of  earthly  kings,  entitled  to  supremacy  over 
other  men  ;  and  if  they  do  not  believe  their  own  dogmas, 
if  they  teach  as  true  what  they  think  is  false,  they  are  the 
very  men  of  all  others  to  pretend  that  they  are  God's 
agents  in  order  that  they  may  take  advantage  of  what 
their  congregations  are  thus  taught  to  consider  their  semi- 
divine  position  to  exact  all  the  obedience,  consideration, 
honor,  and  profit  that  they  can. 

And  they  have  neglected  neither  their  interests  nor 
their  opportunities.  It  is  not  so  very  long  since  the 
Church  assumed  to  govern  in  temporal  as  well  as  spiritual 
things,  and  the  arrogant  priest  gave  his  orders  to  a  king 
as  that  king  would  to  his  valet.  And  in  any  discussion, 
if  such  were  allowed  at  all,  the  finality  of  all  argument 
was  the  "  dixi  " — "  I  have  said  " — of  the  Church.  And 
though  modern  thought  has  exploded  many  of  the  old 
ideas,  and  compelled  the  Church  to  greatly  modify  her 
claims,  and  has  curtailed  the  privileges  and  prestige  of  the 
clergy,  they  are  still  regarded,  perhaps  regard  themselves, 
as  a  class  set  apart  and  consecrated  to  purposes  which  lift 
them  far  above  their  fellows. 

So  their  pride  is  natural,  and  their  intolerance  to  be  ex- 
pected ;  for  their  past  experience  has  taught  them  that, 
the  more  their  people  thought  over  and  discussed  their 
teachings,  the  less  those  teachings  prevailed,  and  the  more 
their  power  waned.  Hence  they  must  look  with  extreme 
aversion  on  any  one  who  interferes  by  his  doubts  and 
questions,  still  more  by  his  arguments,  with  them  or  their 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISITANITY.         43 

doctrines,  and,  so  far  as  in  them  lies,  fight  against  the  ad- 
vancing champions  of  religious  freedom,  by  shaking  the 
anathemas  of  the  Church,  their  only  remaining  weapons, 
in  the  faces  of  their  assailants,  in  the  same  manner,  and 
with  about  the  same  effect,  that  the  Chinese  beat  their 
tom-toms  at  the  advancing  hosts  of  civilization ;  for,  so 
far  from  being  frightened  by  the  noisy  anger  of  the 
Church,  unbelievers  are  rather  amused  at  the  impotency 
of  her  wrath,  the  very  epithets  once  used  by  her  to  bring 
her  enemies  into  reproach  and  contempt  are  now  looked 
upon  as  rather  complimentary  than  otherwise,  investiga- 
tors and  rationalists  are  getting  to  be  in  fashionable  de- 
mand, and  agnosticism  stalks  in  high  places. 

Faith  must  give  way  to  doubt,  for  faith  accepts,  doubt 
investigates ;  faith  rests  content,  doubt  advances  ;  faith 
paralyzes,  doubt  invigorates ;  faith  is  death,  doubt  is 
life.  All  the  progress  man  has  ever  made,  will  ever  make, 
must  be  because  he  doubts  if  the  goal  is  reached,  and  still 
struggles  onward  and  upward.  And  so  it  will  be,  so  it 
should  be.  The  goal,  the  consummation  of  all  hope,  the 
end  of  all  progress,  must  lie  beyond  infinity,  cannot  be 
reached  this  side  of  eternity ;  it  is  unattainable,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  here  or  hereafter, — but  we  may  continue 
to  approach  it  nearer  and  nearer,  forever  moving  forward 
and  higher,  the  past  then  as  now  a  teacher,  the  future 
still  an  enigma  to  be  solved,  the  ever  changing  present 
made  more  and  more  a  delight  as  we  learn  more  and  more 
what,  and  why,  we  are. 

Nor  is  this  a  cheerless  view  of  the  future  life.  It  seems 
to  me  happier,  higher,  nobler,  to  advance  forever  than  to 
rest  at  any  one  point,  whether  physical  or  spiritual,  even 
though  that  point  be  what  is,  at  this  time,  considered  per- 
fection.    The  highest  perfection  which  the  mind  of  man 


44  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

can  conceive  must  be  infinitely  lower  than  the  absolute 
perfection  of  the  Deity.  We  can  never  reach  His  level,  for 
that  would  make  us  Gods;  we  must  ever  be  at  some  point 
below ;  and,  to  my  mind,  there  can  be  no  higher  destiny 
for  the  human  soul  than  a  continued  progression  towards 
the  Godhead,  forever  getting  nearer  and  nearer,  even 
though  never  attaining,  each  step  of  progress  bringing  a 
happiness  unconceived  of  before. 

This  faith  in  the  power  of  doubt,  if  I  may  so  express  it, 
brings  the  conviction  that  investigation  can  injure  only 
error;  that  the  clergy  do  not  possess  all  knowledge;  that 
if  God  has  ever  really  spoken  to  man  He  has  not  yet  told 
him  all  he  was  to  know ;  that  the  goal  in  the  spiritual  is 
no  more  reached  than  is  the  goal  in  the  physical ;  and 
prompts  man  to  ask  for  more  light.  And  finding  that  to 
ask  the  Church  is  to  ask  in  vain  ;  that  she  has  but  one 
answer,  drawn  from  the  barbarous  past,  and  which  she 
admits  is  best  suited  for  children, — an  answer  that  cannot 
be  understood  by  reason,  but  must  be  accepted  by  faith, 
and  which  includes  as  self-evident  propositions  the  very 
doctrines  which  first  aroused  his  doubts,  he  turns  to 
nature  and  leaves  the  Church  to  women  and  children,  who, 
trusting  and  confiding  in  their  nature,  and  with  strong 
superstitious  instincts,  used  to  subjection  and  dependent 
in  disposition,  may  receive  its  teachings  unquestioned. 

But  the  Church  could  not  and  cannot  satisfy  the  cravings 
of  thoughtful,  earnest  men,  for  she  discourages  investiga- 
tion ;  she  cannot  answer  their  cry  for  light,  for  she  forbids 
the  free  use  of  their  reason  ;  she  cannot  advance,  for  she 
claims  she  has  attained  ;  and  to  those  who,  hungering  for 
spiritual  food,  ask  for  the  nutritious  bread  of  life,  she  has 
always  given  a  spiritually  indigestible  stone  in  the  shape 
of  the  unchanged  and  unchanging  myths  of  an  ignorant 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         45 

past,  unsupported  by  reason,  unsustained  by  fact,  and  says 
"  believe  or  be  damned." 

Am  I  not  right  when  I  say  that  the  Church  works  great 
harm  to  man  when  she  insists  that  belief  is  necessary  to 
salvation  ? 

If  such  doctrine  be  derived  from  the  Almighty,  if  God 
really  teaches  that  we  must  believe  what  our  reason  rejects, 
then  no  wonder  that  Paul  has  said  (1  Cor.  ii.,  14):  "  But  the 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
for  they  are  foolishness  to  him  ;  neither  can  he  know  them, 
because  they  are  spiritually  discerned." 

But  I  think  Paul  said  this  because  he  recognized,  with 
his  astute  intellect,  the  necessity  of  silencing  the  voice  of 
reason,  and  therefore  called  to  his  aid  the  superstitious 
instincts  of  those  whom  he  addressed,  and  used  exactly 
the  same  class  of  assertions  (for  they  are  not  arguments) 
that  are  used  in  support  of  all  theological  systems, — that 
the  inner  consciousness  must  be  the  supreme  controller 
(if  it  agreed  with  the  teacher),  that  instinct  is  superior  to 
reason,  that  belief  is  proof. 

But  I  do  not  and  cannot  believe  that  God  has  set  a  trap 
for  His  children,  that  they  may  be  taken  unawares  and 
cruelly  and  endlessly  tortured  without  even  the  hope  of 
relief  through  final  annihilation,  by  making  it  necessary 
for  their  escape  from  that  fearful  doom  that  they  should 
believe  and  accept  as  His  wisdom  that  which  their  God- 
given  reason  rejects  as  nonsense. 

I  cannot  believe  that  He  would  condemn  me  to  punish- 
ment for  a  matter  beyond  my  own  control — belief. 

I  cannot  believe  that  He  would  endow  me  with  reason, 
and  damn  me,  unwarned,  for  consciously  using  it. 

And  thousands  think  the  same,  and  no  longer  bow  to 
the  behests  of  orthodoxy. 


46  DOGMATIC    CHRISTIANITY. 

The  glamour  which  her  priests  have  thrown  around  her 
rites  and  doctrines  is  fast  fading  away,  and  the  inconsis- 
tencies and  incongruities  of  the  Church  are  becoming  more 
and  more  visible.  Men  are,  by  degrees,  getting  bold  enough 
to  deny  that  God  is  but  an  exaggerated  man,  and  to  assert 
that  what  is  foolishness  to  the  natural  man  cannot  be  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.  We  may  believe  what  is  above  and 
beyond  our  reason,  for  it  is  only  where  the  realm  of  rea- 
son ends  that  the  domain  of  faith  properly  begins  ;  and  in 
the  legitimate  domain  of  faith  reason  is  silent,  for  she 
knows  nothing  which  contradicts.  But  when  our  reason 
can  clearly  see  why  anything  cannot  be — when  anything 
is  palpably  folly  to  us — how  infinitely  below  the  wisdom 
of  God  must  it  be.  And  before  we  admit  that  the  highest 
type  of  Divine  wisdom  just  reaches  the  level  of  our  con- 
ception of  nonsense  ;  before  we  slander  the  Almighty  by 
believing  him  absurd  ;  before  we  stultify  ourselves  and 
insult  Him  by  believing  that  what  would  be  imbecility  in 
us  would  be  intelligence  in  Him  ;  let  us  require  absolute 
demonstration  that  He  really  is  what  His  self-appointed 
priests  have  painted  Him,  and  until  such  demonstration 
is  made,  let  us  continue  to  believe  Him  what  nature  tells 
us  He  is,  an  all-pervading,  living,  loving,  unchanging 
God,  ruling,  not  by  caprice,  but  by  fixed  and  immutable, 
because  perfect,  law. 


THE  ARGUMENT. 

PROPOSITION    II. 

II.  The  Doctrine  of  Free-will,  as  usually  understood, 
and  as  taught  by  the  Church,  is  impossible  if  God  be 
as  He  is  represented :  attributing  the  origin  of  sin  to 
man  is  absurd  ;  and  the  idea  of  a  continual  strife 
between  God  and  the  Devil  is  blasphemous. 

In  the  course  of  my  correspondence  with  the  Bishop  I 
had  occasion  to  express  my  doubts  as  to  the  doctrine  of 
free-will  as  taught  by  the  Church.  Whereupon  he  very 
kindly  gave  me  his  views  (which  I  take  to  be  also  those 
of  his  Church)  on  this  interesting  and  puzzling  question, 
as  follows. 

I  quote  from  his  second  letter: 

"  I  must  confess  that  I  had  not  expected  that  you  would 
deny  to  us  free-will.  In  treating  of  the  morality  of  human 
actions,  philosophers  and  theologians  regard  liberty  as 
a  '  conditio  sine  qua  non.'  Where  there  is  no  liberty 
there  can  be  no  moral  act.  A  twofold  liberty  is  spoken 
of,  viz  :  '  Libertas  a  coactione  ;  libertas  a  necessitate.' 

"  '  Libertas  a  coactione '  is  the  freedom  from  exterior 
violence  offered  to  me.  For  instance,  if  a  man  stronger 
than  I  would  overpower  me  and  force  my  hand,  unable 
to  resist,  to  stab  another,  no  court  would  call  my  action 
a  murder,  since  my  will  did  not  possess  the  '  libertas 
a  coactione.' 

"The    'libertas  a  necessitate'    is   defined    ordinarily: 

47 


48  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

1  Libertas  qua  voluntas  non  solum  sponte  ac  liberter  agit, 
sed  cum  tali  suorum  ac:tuum  dominio  ut  possit  seque  non 
eligere  vel  eligere,  agere  vel  non  agere.'  It  is  also 
denned  to  be  '  vis  electiva,  seu  facultas  eligendi  vel  non 
eligendi  pro  libitu.'  This  is  in  reality  the  true  liberty 
which  has  its  seat  essentially  in  the  intellectual  soul,  and 
no  power  of  man  or  devils  can  rob  us  of  it.  No  man  or 
devil  can  force  my  will  to  consent  to,  or  take  pleasure  in, 
an  improper  action.  The  very  pagan  Seneca  says  '  cor- 
pora obnoxia  sunt  dominis,  mens  sui  juris  est.'  But  if  a 
man  has  lost,  or  never  did  possess,  this  '  libertas  a  neces- 
sitate, '  he  will  not  be  punished  for  an  act  which  in  sc 
would  be  a  crime.  Thus  an  idiot,  who  has  killed  a  man, 
could  not  be  punished  for  the  act.  But  it  is  just  this  free- 
dom of  the  will  which  you  deny.  To  prove  that  man  has 
no  free-will,  you  bring  the  example  of  the  drunkard.  He 
falls  into  drunkenness  and  you  very  illogically  conclude 
that  therefore  he  has  no  free-will.  You  can  logically 
conclude  that  the  individual  in  question  has  preferred 
drunkenness  to  temperance — and  nothing  else.  Hence 
we  note  thousands  of  instances  of  men  who  have  pre- 
ferred temperance  to  the  allurements  of  drunkenness. 
I  have  seen  in  New  York  and  other  cities,  what  almost 
every  Catholic  priest  can  tell  you  of,  how  poor 
women  have  emerged  from  the  lowest  sinks  of  the  great 
city,  and,  by  a  life  of  piety,  redeemed  the  past.  I  have 
seen  many  and  many  a  man  who  has  been  a  drunkard, 
arise,  and  by  a  life  of  temperance  bring  back  comfort  and 
happiness  to  his  family.  From  your  example  of  the 
drunkard  you  can  logically  conclude  that  the  poor  fellow 
prefers  the  momentary  gratification  of  his  palate  to  the 
pleasures  purchased  only  by  checking  the  unlawful 
desires  of  the  senses — and  not  a  jot  more  can  be  logi- 
cally concluded. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         49 

"  Because  some  men  always  yield  to  their  cravings  for 
liquor  and  other  improper  gratifications  of  the  flesh,  to 
conclude  that  therefore  '  an  irresistible  force '  controls 
them,  and  thence  to  deny  free-will — is  certainly  most 
illogical.  Deny  free-will  to  man,  and  you  destroy  all  dis- 
tinction between  virtue  and  vice.  If,  as  you  say,  'the 
poor  man  is  helpless  ' — if  an  '  irresistible  force  '  controls 
him,  the  drunkard,  the  adulterer,  the  murderer,  is  to  be 
pitied  when  he  gets  drunk,  commits  adultery,  murder, 
and  other  crimes.  But  surely  a  man  ought  not  to  be 
punished  for  what  he  cannot  help.  In  therefore  denying 
free-will  to  man,  you  open  the  famous  and  terrible  ques- 
tion:  'Whence  the  origin  of  evil?'  That  grave  question 
puzzled  the  wisest  heads  of  antiquity.  Whence  came  all 
the  evil — the  countless  woes,  physical  and  moral,  which 
we  see  in  this  world  ?  How  does  it  happen  that  the  poor 
little  babe  must  die  in  such  agony  as  to  melt  the  hardest 
bosom  ?  How  come  those  cruel  diseases,  fearful  epi- 
demics, and  the  countless  woes  that  flesh  is  heir  to  from 
the  cradle  to  the  grave  ?  To  say  that  God  purposely 
created  man,  who,  without  any  fault  of  his  own,  is  to 
endure  the  agonies,  the  pains,  the  death,  which  are  so 
fearful  in  the  history  of  man — is  to  make  of  God  a  tyrant,  in 
comparison  with  whom  Nero  and  Robespierre  were  gentle 
doves.  Hence  the  ancients  were  all  puzzled  over  this 
question.  Hence  their  theories  about  a  blind  and  eternal 
fate,  about  the  dual  principles,  etc.,  etc.  The  only  logical 
answer  to  this  fearful  question  is  what  the  Christian  dogma 
gives.  For  the  Christian  dogma  places  the  origin  of  all  evil 
in  the  revolt  of  the  free-will  of  the  creature  against  the  most 
lawful  and  mild  command  of  Him  who  was  more  than 
friend,  benefactor,  father  to  man — for  He  was  God.  God 
created  man  with  a  nature  perfect  and  free  from  disease 


50  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

and  death.     God  placed  man  in  a  world  free  from  all  that 
is  noxious,  and  replete  with  the  good  and  beautiful.     But 
man  had  a  free-will— and  he  consequently  could   make  a 
bad  use  of  that  beautiful  freedom  ;  and  he  did.   He  dared 
to  insult  the  infinite  majesty  of  God  by  revolting  against 
His  commands.     Our   sense  of  justice   tells  us  that   sin 
must  be  punished.     Now  the  punishment  must  be  in  pro- 
portion to   the  enormity  of  the  crime.     Hence  the  man 
who  may  have  stolen  a  few  pennies  is   not  to  receive  the 
same  punishment  as  he  who  has  committed  murder.  The 
enormity  of  the  crime  is  also  measured  by  the  dignity  of 
the  person  insulted.     Hence  the   boy  who  slaps  the  face 
of  one  of  his  little  playmates  has  not  committed  as  grievous 
a  fault  as  he  who  has  slapped  the  face  of  his  own  mother. 
The  dignity  of  the  mother  insulted  being  so  much  greater 
than  the  dignity  of  the  little  playmate,  causes  the  differ- 
ence.    But  He  who   is  insulted  by  man's  sin  is  a  God  of 
infinite  dignity.     Hence  when  death  and  his  train  of  tem- 
poral punishments  came  into  this  world,  the  philosophic 
mind  can  justly  regard   all  this  as  a  punishment  due  to 
sin.     '  Per  peccatum  mors  intravit  in  hunc  mundum  ' — by 
sin  has  death  entered   into  this  world.     Moreover,  God 
sent  a  Redeemer  to  fallen  man, — and  if  man  will  but  have 
a  good  will,  God's  wisdom  will  convert  man's  very  fall 
into  such  wonderful  dignities  flowing  from   the  redemp- 
tion  that   for  all  eternity  he  will  sing:     'O   felix  culpa 
quae    talem     et     tantum    meruiti     Redemptorem.'     The 
bodily  ills  and  miseries  of  life,  if  patiently  endured  by 
the  Christian,  cease  to  be  ills.     For  they  will  merit  such 
a  glorious  reward  after  this  brief  life  that  with  Christ  we 
say :  '  Blessed    are  the  poor  ;  blessed   are   ye  that  mourn 
and   weep  ;    blessed  are  they  that    suffer    persecutions/ 
As  to  moral  evils,  (and  take  them  away,  would  you  not 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         5 1 

be  taking  away  the  vast,  I  had  almost  said  all,  the  evils 
which  afflict  mankind,)  our  dogma  is  here  most  reason- 
able. Catholic  dogma  tells  us  that  our  will  is  free — and 
consequently  there  is  no  '  irresistible  force  '  to  compel  me, 
or  any  other  human  being,  to  get  drunk,  murder,  or  com- 
mit any  other  moral  evil.  If  moral  evil  exists  man's 
abuse  of  that  wonderful  gift — our  free-will — is  to  blame 
for  it  and  its  consequences. 

"  But  you  deny  that  man  has  a  free-will — you  assert  that 
an  'irresistible  force  controls  him.'  Then  we  have  the 
right  to  say  that  a  just  judge  cannot  punish  man  for  doing 
what  he  is  constrained  to  by  '  an  irresistible  force.' 

"  I  have  a  right  then  to  ask  you,  whence  then  all  these 
evils  in  this  world  ?  I  can  ask,  why  then  does  God  make 
man  suffer  such  cruel  ills  and  horrid  death?  Can  a  God 
who  is  infinitely  good  create  poor  beings  who  without 
any  fault  of  their  own  are  so  miserable  as  we — who 
having  done  no  sin  (as  they  have  no  free-will)  enter  this 
vale  of  tears,  '  primam  vocem  lachrymans,'  and  leave  this 
world  amid  groans  and  agonies  which  make  the  bystanders 
shudder  with  horror?  Not  having  a  free-will,  man  did 
nothing  to  merit  all  these  punishments — and  how  could 
a  God  be  just  and  punish  man  for  sins  which  he  could  not 
avoid  ?  Consequently  there  is  no  escape  ;  deny  a  man  free- 
will, and  you  must  believe  in  the  existence  of  an  unjust 
and  cruel  God,  which  is  an  absurdity.  Admit  that  man 
has  a  free  will,  and  philosophy  can  tell  you  that  sin 
deserves  punishment ;  that  death  and  the  other  evils  of 
this  life  are  not  too  severe  punishments  for  sins  committed 
against  a  person  of  infinite  dignity. 

"  'Tis  true,  I  do  not  deny  that  there  are  difficulties.  But 
these  difficulties  arise  from  the  fact  that  we  do  not  know 
in  life  the  Infinite  Being — God.     The  dignity  of  a  father 


52  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

and  mother  we  know.  And  hence  when  that  dignity  is 
insulted  our  sense  of  justice  appreciates  the  justice  of  the 
punishment.  The  Infinite,  however,  we  have  never  seen. 
Hence  what  is  due  to  infinite  dignity  insulted  will  always 
appear  more  or  less  obscure,  more  or  less  attended  with 
difficulty  to  the  poor  weak  mind  of  the  finite  being. 

"  The  Eternal  Infinite,  Omniscient,  we  have  never  seen, 
consequently  we  will  always  find  difficulties  in  the  action 
of  the  Eternal,  Omniscient,  Infinite  God,  with  and  upon 
the  finite  free-will  of  man.     It  is  the  very  nature  of  things 
to   expect  difficulties  here.     For  to  comprehend   clearly 
and   without  difficulties  with  our  limited   intellects,  we 
must  first  know  the  Eternal  Infinite.     Hence  it  is  impos- 
sible, in  this  life,  fully  to  realize  the  enormity  of  sin— for 
we  do  not  know  in  this  life  the  infinite  dignity  of  the  God 
insulted  by  sin.     The  Infinite,  the   Eternal,  have  never 
yet  fallen   under  the    apprehension   of  our  senses.     We 
have  really  no  true   and  adequate  conception  of  the  Infi- 
nite.    But  this  should  not  surprise  us.     In  our  very  body 
there  are  many  things  whose  existence  we  must  admit, 
but  which  give  rise  to  difficulties  which  will  never  be  ex- 
plained.    But  to  endeavor  to  remove  difficulties  by  alto- 
gether denying  well-established  facts,  is  only  to  fall  into 
inextricable  absurdities.     So  in  things  divine.     There  are, 
no  doubt,  difficulties  arising  from  acknowledging  the  free- 
will in  man  and   the  ever   Omniscient,  Infinite,   Eternal 
God.     But  these  difficulties  must  be  in  all  reason  expected 
to  arise  in   our  minds.     For  we  are  so  limited.     In  this 
world  our  knowledge  of  the  Omniscient,  Infinite  God  is 
extremely  little.     We  see  God  here  only  '  in  cenigmate  et 
quasi  in  speculo '—consequently  the  relations  between  an 
Infinite,  Omniscient,   Eternal  Being,  and  beings  like   us, 
finite  and  subject  to  many  weaknesses,  must  necessarily 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         53 

present  difficulties  to  our  mind,  which  has  never  seen  the 
Infinite,  the  Eternal,  the  Omniscient. 

"  But  because  of  difficulties  to  deny  point-blank  the  ex- 
istence of  free-will  in  man,  is  to  deny  the  belief  of  all  man- 
kind. Mankind  has  always  been  conscious  that  there  is 
no  '  irresistible  force '  which  compels  a  man  to  get  drunk, 
commit  adultery,  murder,  and  other  sins.  If  a  man  does 
these  acts,  the  voice  of  the  entire  human  family  says  he 
himself  is  to  blame, — and  so  conscious  is  the  human  family 
of  this  that  they  have  always  punished  most  terribly  the 
men  who  dared  commit  those  crimes.  But  deny  free-will 
and  you  encounter  a  greater  evil.  You  open  the  then 
countless  and  wholly  unanswerable  questions :  how  came 
evil  into  this  world  ?  Why  does  God,  infinitely  good, 
send  sickness,  miseries,  and  death  upon  his  own,  in  that 
case,  helpless,  as  well  as  hapless,  creatures?  What  have 
they  done  to  deserve  all  these  miseries  ?  They  have  not 
committed  sin — for  sin  is  impossible  where  there  is  no 
free-will.  These  actions  are  not  sins  ;  for  an  '  irresistible 
force,'  which  God  Himself  created,  compelled  them  to 
get  drunk  and  do  other  things — where  then  the  justice  in 
punishing  them? 

"  Whereas  by  admitting  that  man  has  a  free  will  we  are 
in  accord  with  the  universal  belief  of  mankind.  If  all 
mankind  has  been  so  wofully  deceived  that  after  all  we 
have  no  free-will,  the  human  intellect  could  no  longer  be 
trusted.  We  also  find  here  the  rational  answer  to  the 
grave  question:  how  came  evil  into  this  world?  More- 
over, I  have  said  before  that  the  omniscience  of  God  is 
perfectly  reconcilable  with  man's  free-will." 

It  will  be  observed,  I  think,  that  this  very  interesting 
statement  of  the  Church's  side  of  the   question  is   fairly 


54  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

reducible  to  this:  The  doctrine  of  free-will  is  a  theory 
devised  by  the  Church  to  explain  certain  mysterious  facts 
and  to  answer  certain  very  inconvenient  questions.  It 
does  not  seem  to  be  claimed  as  a  fact  revealed  by  the 
Almighty,  but  is  an  assumption  of  the  Church.  It  is 
frankly  admitted  that  the  subject  is  naturally  full  of  diffi- 
culties, and  it  is  practically  confessed  that  the  Church's 
dogma  is  only  a  partial  solution  ;  and  the  main  arguments 
in  favor  of  its  correctness,  when  reduced  to  their  last 
analysis,  seem  to  be : 
ist.    That  though  not  explaining  satisfactorily,  it  explains 

better  than  any  other  theory  ;  and 
2d.    All  mankind  believe  it. 

To  these  two  arguments  I  reply : 

ist.  A  theory  that  does  not  explain  all  the  facts  it 
attempts  to  account  for  is  unfit  for  the  purposes  for 
which  it  was  intended  ;  and 

2d.  Even  if  all  mankind  believed  it,  (which  I  think  is 
rather  too  broad  an  assertion),  it  would  not  be  any 
evidence  of  its  truth.  It  would  be  a  very  dangerous 
precedent  to  establish  that  a  theory  was  true  or  false 
according  to  the  number  of  those  who  accept  or 
reject  it,  for,  in  that  case,  having  in  view  "  all  man- 
kind," the  Christian  religion  would  be  in  a  hopeless 
minority,  and  consequently  could  not  be  held  to 
be  true. 

And  this  ought  to  dispose  of  this  class  of  arguments  so 
common  with  the  Church. 

The  Bishop's  method  of  reconciling  the  omniscience  of 
God  with  man's  free-will,  will  be  given  and  commented 
on  under  Proposition  V,  when  we  come  to   speak  of  the 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  55 

deductions  to  be  drawn  from  the  history  of  the  betrayal 
by  Judas. 

I  agree  with  the  Bishop  that  the  question  of  free-will  is  one 
of  difficulty,  very  grave  difficulty.  I  will  even  admit  that  the 
difficulty  is,  in  our  present  state  of  knowledge,  insolvable. 
So  with  the  questions  of  the  origin  of  the  evil,  and  reconcil- 
ing the  existence  of  evil  with  the  goodness  of  God.  I  have 
thought  much,  and  read  much  on  these  subjects,  and 
candidly  admit  that  I  have  only  partially  satisfied  my 
own  mind.  We  are  all  equally  in  the  dark,  churchmen 
and  laymen  ;  but  some  little  light  is  beginning  to  shine 
upon  the  question  of  why  evil  exists,  or,  more  properly, 
of  the  uses  and  advantages  of  what  we  call  evil,  and  I 
need  hardly  say  the  light  does  not  come  from  the  direc- 
tion of  the  Church ;  it  comes  from  a  better  acquaintance 
with  nature. 

Although  whether  I  am  right  or  wrong  in  my  views 
upon  these  intricate  and  interesting  questions  cannot 
really  affect  the  main  points  under  discussion,  except  that 
if  I  am  right  the  Church  must  be  wrong,  and  therefore  by 
no  means  infallible  ;  and  although  the  known  facts  are  too 
few  and  too  little  understood  to  permit  either  side  to  do 
more  than  argue  the  probability  of  its  views  ;  I  will,  very 
briefly,  considering  the  magnitude  of  the  subject,  give 
such  conclusions  as  I  have  reached,  with  my  reasons. 

I  understand  there  are  those  who  believe  in  what  is 
called  "  predestination,"  and  that  such  urge  that  we  are, 
with  reference  to  God,  as  clay  in  the  potter's  hands,  that 
our  every  act  is  foreseen,  that  our  eternal  fate  is  fore- 
ordained, but  yet  insist  (by  a  contradiction  which  is 
absurd  to  all  except  theologians,  to  whom  it  is  incompre- 
hensible) that  we  are  free  agents.  I  do  not  address  my 
argument  to  such,  for  they  would  seem  to  be  on  both 


56  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

sides  of  the  question  at  once,  and  ready  to  agree  with  any 
one  in  any  conclusion.  I  wish  to  reach  a  definite  con- 
clusion, not  repugnant  to  reason,  and  which  will  at  least 
have  the  merit  of  letting  us  know  just  what  we  do 
believe ;  and  I  will  reason  from  analogy,  and  not  from 
authority. 

I  believe,  because  I  can  see  no  reason  to  the  contrary, 
but  much  in  its  favor,  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that  He  is 
necessarily,  or  He  would  not  be  God,  omnipotent,  om- 
niscient, and  prescient,  as  well  as  all-good.  I  also  believe 
that  He  pervades  all  nature,  and  that  everything  exists 
by  and  through  Him,  and  that  without  Him  nothing 
could  exist.  I  think  this  much  can  be  logically  deduced 
from  nature,  and  as  the  Church  and  I  agree  on  this  point 
it  is  hardly  necessary  to  argue  it.  I  also  believe,  as  a 
necessary  corollary  from  these  facts,  that  this  universe  is 
governed  by  His  will ;  and  as  it  has  been  demonstrated  that 
the  universe  is  governed  by  law,  it  must  be,  if  my  belief 
is  right,  that  God's  will  is  that  law.  This  means,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  attributes  above  specified,  that 
everything,  all  nature,  animate  and  inanimate,  originated, 
exists,  changes,  grows,  decays,  dies,  under  fixed  and  in- 
alterable law,  not  caprice  ;  for  caprice  is  not  law,  in  the 
sense  in  which  I  am  using  the  term,  even  if  it  be  the 
caprice  of  a  God. 

All  we  know,  in  contra-distinction  to  believe,  of  God,  we 
have  learned  from  nature.  How  He  works  we  may  observe 
and  learn ;  why  He  does  it,  we  may  never  know,  we  can 
only  guess.  Or  as  I  expressed  the  same  idea  in  a  public 
address  more  than  twenty  years  ago  :  "  We  are  not  per- 
mitted to  scrutinize  the  reasons  of  the  Almighty,  but  we 
are  permitted  to  observe  phenomena  and  from  them  to 
learn  His  laws." 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  $7 

From  the  observation  of  these  phenomena  it  is  demon- 
strated with  absolute  certainty  that  under  certain  circum- 
stances the  desire  to  do  certain  acts  amounts  to  mania,  is 
a  disease,  and  is  irresistible.  Hence  dipsomania,  nymph- 
omania or  gynecomania,  kleptomania,  and  other  diseases 
which,  though  theology  may  teach  the  contrary,  irresisti- 
bly impel  men  and  women  to  do  acts  which,  were  their 
wills  free,  they  would  not  do.  These  are  scientific  facts 
which  the  Church  has  not  yet  learned.  Further  investi- 
gation may,  and  probably  will,  establish  the  fact  that  even 
when  one  is  apparently  acting  the  most  deliberately,  he  is 
acting  under  irresistible  impulses,  induced  by  causes 
beyond  his  control ;  and,  of  course,  the  same  applies  with 
more  force  to  actions  not  deliberate.  For  example,  sup- 
pose a  man  of  violent  temper  marries  a  woman  equally 
excitable  ;  their  offspring  will  almost  certainly  possess  an 
ungovernable  temper,  and  will  do  many  things  under  its 
influence  which  he  would  not  do  if  his  parents  had  not 
forced,  under  the  inexorable  law  of  heredity,  such  dispo- 
sition on  him.  His  reason  and  judgment,  his  will,  may 
be  to  be  mild  and  gentle ;  he  strives  hard  to  control  his 
inherited  ferocity,  but  causes  which  on  one  more  favorably 
born  would  have  no  effect,  will  goad  him  into  a  frenzy 
that  makes  him  blind,  and  in  his  rage  he  knows  not  what 
he  does.  So,  too,  with  the  man  who  inherits  the  desire 
for  drink.  In  his  sober  moments  he  resolves  earnestly 
and  honestly  never  to  touch  alcohol  in  any  shape ;  he 
avoids  temptation  ;  but  his  desire  is  stronger  than  his  will, 
and  he  falls  again  and  again.  Where  is  his  free-will? 
Who  is  responsible  for  the  irresistible  force  which  controls 
his  will?  He  is  not  to  blame  for  it,  his  father,  or  his 
grandfather,  or  some  other  ancestor  bequeathed  it  to 
him,  and  he  cannot  cret  rid  of  it.     God  made  the  law  of 


58  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

heredity,  and  under  its  operation  the  poor  man  is  help- 
less. Though  we  are  not  controlled  by  visible  powers,  we 
are  none  the  less  controlled.  Disposition,  the  peculiar 
structure  of  our  brains,  surrounding  circumstances,  all  or 
any,  may  control  our  wills,  and  they  are  all  beyond  our 
control ;  and  I  cannot  doubt  that  in  the  final  settlement 
of  our  accounts,  whenever  and  wherever  that  may  take 
place,  our  inherited  disposition  and  character  will  enter 
very  largely  into  it,  and  immensely  modify  the  psycho- 
logical consequences  of  our  acts. 

And  yet,  in  the  absence  of  visible  physical  force,  in 
our  inordinate  human  vanity,  we,  men,  the  creatures  of 
circumstances  beyond  our  control,  arrogate  to  ourselves 
free-will,  and  think  we  are  but  a  little  lower  than  the 
angels. 

A  man  cannot  be  truly  said  to  possess  a  free  will 
unless  he  can  control  all  that  goes  to  make  up  that  will. 
One  man  is,  as  we  have  seen,  by  a  nature  for  which  he  is 
not  responsible,  made  cold  and  phlegmatic,  while  another, 
equally  without  his  fault,  is  hot  and  impetuous.  Each 
one's  will  is  controlled  by  his  natural  disposition,  and  his 
natural  disposition  is  forced  upon  him  not  by  his  own  act. 
He  may,  by  proper  training  and  favorable  circumstances, 
modify  his  nature,  or,  rather,  to  some  extent  restrain  it ; 
but  never  to  that  degree  that  he  can  be  truly  said  to  have 
entire  free-will.  One  will  find  temptation  irresistible,  the 
other  is  not  moved  by  it ;  it  may  be  that  neither  is  in- 
fluenced by  principle,  but  only  by  his  natural  disposition  ; 
or  it  may  be  that  natural  disposition  in  one  is  so  much 
stronger  than  in  the  other  that  it  controls  and  subordi- 
nates principle  ;  yet  in  either  case  the  will,  and  the  choice 
made  by  it,  is  the  result  of  that  disposition  which,  come 
from  what  source  it  may,  is  not  his  fault;  and   therefore 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  59 

while  his  will  may  seem  to  choose,  the  choice  is  by  no 
means  free. 

But  the   Bishop    says    that    drunken    men    and    fallen 
women  may,  and  do,  reform.     This  is  true,  though  rare  : 
but  it  shows  nothing  to  the  contrary  of,  nor  does  it  conflict 
with,  what  I  have  just  said.     Many,  perhaps  most,  who 
fall  are  sorely  tempted    by   present    circumstances,    fre- 
quently deceived  and  entrapped,  in  the  case  of  women,  oi- 
led  astray   by  evil  associations,   or  the  desire   to  forget 
trouble,  in  the  case  of  men,  and  are  not  impelled  by  pre- 
natal causes,  though   the  facility  of  the  yielding  or  the 
vigor  of  the  resistance  may  be  affected  by  them.     And 
the  reform  may  be  because  the  experiment  has  satisfied 
the  person  that  there  was  more  happiness  in  a  more  moral 
life,  his  mind  having,  by  satiety  or  other  natural  cause, 
been  brought   to  that  condition  where  it  in  its  turn  sub- 
ordinated his  wasted  passions.     Each  case  of  reform,  like 
each  case  of  sin,  must  be  examined  in  all  its  details  before 
we   can   give  any  satisfatory   explanation  of  how  it  has 
been  brought  about.     But  in  each  case  the  reform  must 
depend,  like  the  yielding,  more  on  the   effect  of  circum- 
stances on  the  natural  disposition,  than  on  the  mere  voli- 
tion, or  free-will.     There  may  be  a  line  within  which  man 
is  free  to  act  as  he  wishes,  and  can  control  his  will,  or  act 
contrary  to  his  desires.      But  where  that  line  is  I  do  not 
know,  and  it  must  vary  in  each  individual ;  but  the  proba- 
bility is  that  every  act,  no  matter  how  trivial,  is  done  in 
strict   accordance  with   some    law,   though    we    may   not 
know  or  understand   it  ;  and   that   there  are  other  laws 
which,  by  counteracting  the  first,  may  permit  us  a  certain 
freedom  within  certain  undefined  and  restricted  bounds ; 
and   it  is   therefore  probable   that  a  better  acquaintance 
with  the  laws  of  nature  may  teach  us  a  better  way  of  con- 


60  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

trolling  unlawful  desires  than  by  praying  for  the  grace  of 
God,  which  experience  shows  us  is,  to  put  it  with  extreme 
mildness,  a  very  uncertain  method. 

The  study  of  the  operations  of  the  mind  seems  to  point 
in  the  same  direction.  What  I  have  already  said  in  dis- 
cussing the  involuntary  character  of  belief  appears  to  me 
to  illustrate  this.  If  I  had  a  free  will  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  Church  uses  the  term,  and  if  to  believe  as  I  do 
be  a  sin,  as  the  Church  must  certainly  hold,  then,  on  the 
Church's  theory,  I  hold  my  views  by  virtue  of  my  own 
free-will,  and  have  the  power  (else  I  have  not  free-will), 
to  change  them  and  believe  as  the  Church  teaches.  But 
I  know  that  I  am  as  powerless  to  believe  the  dogmas  of  the 
Church  as  I  am  to  believe  that  my  existence  is  a  myth; 
so  whatever  the  Church's  theory  may  say,  I  know  that  I 
am  not  free  to  change  my  views.  Were  argument  to  be 
adduced  sufficient  to  convince  my  mind,  my  views  would 
change  themselves,  but  my  will  would  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it.  And  if  my  belief  be  a  sin,  it  is  a  sin  I  cannot 
help  committing.  The  Church  might  say  that  my  free- 
will led  me  into  a  course  of  study  which  has  produced  the 
present  result.  But  I  say  no  ;  the  study  succeeded  the 
doubt,  and  was  the  result  of  an  earnest  desire  to  get 
truth,  a  desire  so  strong  that  it  absorbed  even  the  wish  to 
resist ;  and  he  is  unfortunate  indeed  who  wishes  to  resist 
the  desire  for  truth  ;  I  am  thankful  that  I  do  not. 

It  has  been  urged  that  on  the  theory  which  I  advocate 
it  is  wrong  to  impose  punishment  upon  criminals,  certainly 
upon  those  who  commit  crimes  under  the  impulsion  of 
pre-natal  causes.  There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  this 
beyond  its  seeming  plausibility.  In  the  first  place,  juries 
must  convict  and  judges  sentence  without  reference  to 
their  personal  ideas  of  propriety,  because  it  is  their  duty 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         6 1 

to  execute  all  the   laws  which  actually  exist,  not  merely 
those    which    they    approve.     And    in  the    next    place 
the    criminal    laws,    as    they    now  exist,  as    a    rule,    are 
right.     We  have  seen   that  these  pre-natal  causes   impel 
with  varying  force,  sometimes  irresistibly,  sometimes  with 
less  power.     One  force  in  nature  frequently   overcomes 
another.     The  cohesion  of  a  string  may  counteract  the  at- 
traction of  gravity  and  hold  a  weight   suspended  in  the 
air.     Gravitation  exists  and  is  acting;  cohesion  exists  and 
is  acting.     If  gravitation  is  the  stronger,  the  string  breaks 
and  the  weight  falls  ;    otherwise  the  weight  remains  acted 
on  but  unmoved  by  gravity.      So  one  emotion  or  passion 
may  counterbalance  or  restrain  another ;  and  the  dread 
of  the  publicity  of  a  trial  and  the  probability  of  a  convic- 
tion, and,  in  that  case,  the  certainty  of  punishment,  may, 
and  does  frequently,  overcome  the   desire  to   commit  a 
wrong   act,  where    the   desire   is  merely  strong  but  not 
irresistible ;  and  in  that  way  the  law  prevents  or  lessens 
crime.     If  the  desire  be  stronger  than  the  fear,  then   the 
crime    is    committed,    and    the  law  imposes  its   penalty 
not  so  much  as  an  avenger  as  for  the  purpose  of  deterring 
others,  through  that  same  law  of  counteracting  forces,  by 
showing  that  the   result  of  the   crime  is  actual,  practical 
pain   and   suffering;    and   for  the  purpose   of  separating 
from  his  fellows,  for  his  own  and  their  good,  one  who  has 
shown   that  he  cannot  with  safety  be  left  at  large.     No 
one  attaches  the  idea  of  crime  to  a  mad  dog,  but  never- 
theless he  must  be  put  out  of  the  way.     So  with  certain 
classes  of  criminals.     They  may  not  be  morally  respon- 
sible for  their  acts,  but  if  their  acts  are  dangerous  to  the 
persons  or  property   of  the  community  they  should  be 
put  where  they  can  do  no  more  harm  even  if  they  can  do 
no  good. 


62  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

From  his  argument  the  Bishop  seems  to  think  that  free- 
will is  the  only  theory  that  can  reconcile  the  existence  of 
evil  with  the  goodness  of  God,  and  that  that  theory  does 
it,  because  by  that  theory  evil  comes  from  the  free-will  of 
man  and  not  from  God.  This  does  not  solve  the  diffi- 
culty, it  only  temporizes  with  it ;  for  if  sin  and  its  atten- 
dant and  consequent  evils  arose  from  free-will,  then  they 
arose  because  God  chose  to  give  men  free-will,  and  the  prop- 
osition is  presented  in  this  light :  God  is  omnipotent  and 
prescient  ;  He  made  man,  including  his  character  and  dis- 
position ;  He  knew  that  if  He  gave  him  free-will  he  would 
sin,  and  that,  as  a  consequence,  evil  would  come  into  the 
world  ;  He  need  not  have  given  him  free-will,  but  could 
have  controlled  his  will  so  that  all  his  desires  should  have 
been  pure ;  but  He  deliberately  acted  otherwise,  and  so 
made  man  that  He  knew  sin  and  evil  would  result 
from  it. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  very  far  from  solving  the 
difficulty  and  carries  us  just  where  we  did  not  want  to  go. 
The  object  of  the  theory  is  to  remove  the  responsibility 
of  sin  from  God  ;  but  clearly  it  does  not  do  it. 

Another  effort  in  the  same  direction  was  inventing  the 
devil ;  for  it  seems  to  have  been  thought  that  if  putting 
the  origin  of  sin  on  man  did  not  relieve  God  from  respon- 
sibility for  it,  putting  it  on  the  devil  would.  But  that 
helps  the  matter  no  more  than  does  the  other  theory,  un- 
less it  be  held  that  God  did  not  make  the  devil,  that  the 
devil  is  the  more  powerful  of  the  two,  and  that  God  can- 
not control  him  ;  otherwise  he  must  be  acting  by  the 
permission  of  God,  doing  just  what  God  permits  and 
wishes,  for  if  He  can  without  trouble  or  danger  stop  him, 
and  does  not,  He  must  wish  him  to  continue  as  he  is  doing ; 
and  the  responsibility  for  all  his  acts  would  be  with  God. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         63 

None  of  the  Church  theories  helps  us,  for  in  order  to 
make  any  of  them  available  God  must  be  shorn  of  His 
chiefest  attributes,  or  be  dethroned. 

But  nature  helps  us  a  little — not  very  much.  As  I 
have  indicated  before,  the  Hozu  is  within  our  reach.  The 
Why  must  necessarily  remain  beyond. 

God  has  made  a  set  of  laws  which  we  may  divide  into 
physical  and  moral,  the  two  covering  all  the  phenomena 
of  nature — physical,  mental,  and  psychological. 

The  violation  of  any  physical  law  carries  punishment 
with  it  without  reference  to  intention.  Poison  will  pro- 
duce sickness  or  death,  whether  taken  ignorantly,  inten- 
tionally, or  accidentally.  A  law  of  nature  has  been 
violated,  and  all  the  consequences  of  violation  follow.  As 
I  have  said  elsewhere  in  this  discussion,  nature  warns  with 
a  blow,  but  the  blow  is  usually  given  after,  not  before,  the 
violation  of  her  laws.  This  punishment,  if  we  may  so  call 
it,  is  nature's  protest  against  ignorance,  and  is  her  com- 
mand to  study  her  phenomena  and  learn  her  laws.  Try 
to  change,  disguise,  or  explain  it  as  we  may,  this  is  God's 
law.  in  physical  nature.  No  revelation  is  claimed  to  have 
ever  been  attempted  in  this  direction  :  experience  is  the 
only  teacher,  reason  the  only  guide ;  and  they  have 
been  found  to  be  sufficient  when  left  free  to  assert  them- 
selves. 

Now  what  warrant  have  we  for  assuming  that  God's 
moral  law  is  so  totally  different  from  His  physical  law 
that  it  must  be  studied  and  learned  in  a  totally  different 
way ;  that  in  the  place  of  experience  and  reason  we 
must  rely  upon  revelation  and  faith? 

So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  only  a  supposed 
revelation  to  the  Jews,  a  revelation  which,  like  an  ancient 
deed,  is  assumed  to   prove   itself,  and  manifestly  for  the 


64  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

same  reason — there  is  no  other  way  to  prove  it.  Proof 
being  out  of  the  question,  it  is  taken  for  granted  rather 
than  raise  perplexing  and  annoying  questions  and 
controversies.  A  revelation  which  was  seemingly  so 
unimportant  that  they  were  permitted  to  lose  it,  and  be 
without  it,  until  it  was  found  by  Hilkiah;  a  revelation  of 
which  the  rest  (and  by  far  the  largest  part)  of  the  world 
were  permitted  to  be  in  entire  ignorance  until  the  trans- 
lation at  Alexandria  against  the  will  of  the  Chosen 
People. 

And  what  did  the  rest  of  -the  world  do  during  all  this 
time?  Why,  nearly  every  nation  had  a  "  revelation  "  of 
its  own,  and  so  similar,  in  many  instances,  to  that  of  the 
Jews  as  to  suggest  the  idea  of  a  common  origin,  the 
Jewish  being  about  the  youngest,  and  to  a  great  extent 
the  most  repulsive.  That  common  origin  seems  to  have 
been  the  mind  of  man  endeavoring  to  explain  phenomena 
which  he  could  not  comprehend,  by  referring  them  to  a 
Deity  who  was  always  only  an  exaggerated  copy  of  the 
ideal  man  of  the  people  over  whom  He  was  supposed  to 
preside. 

I  think  we  are  therefore  authorized  to  assume  that 
what  has  been  called  "  revelation  "  is  nothing  more, 
nothing  less,  than  an  expression  of  the  theories  of  the 
past  based  on  imperfectly,  or  not  at  all,  understood 
natural,  mental,  and  psychological  phenomena,  and  crude 
ideas  of  ethics  and  sociology,  derived  from  limited  experi- 
ence and  worked  up  by  uncultivated  minds.  Hence,  if  this 
view  be  correct,  as  I  think  it  is,  the  value  of  revelation  as 
a  guide  is  not  particularly  great,  and  it  would  be  safer 
to  look  for  the  moral  law  as  we  do  for  the  physical,  by 
accurate  observation  and  careful  deduction.  We  may  go 
astray,  and  most  assuredly  often  do,  but    not  so  far  as 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.         65 

the  Church  would  lead  us,  for  that  would  carry  us  back 
to  the  dawn  of  civilization  and  keep  us  there.  But  the 
errors  of  the  past  lead  to  the  truths  of  the  future  ;  past 
failures  make  future  successes,  when  investigation  and 
study  are  not  annulled  by  dogmatism. 

I  see  no  reason,  then,  for  supposing  that  the  moral  law, 
in    its    action,  differs  in    any  respect   from  the  physical, 
and  I  deduce  that  an  infraction  of  it  is  assuredly  punished, 
in  this  world  or  the  next,  or  both,  whether  the  violation 
be  voluntary,  forced,  or  through  ignorance.     Every  viola- 
tion of  the  physical  law,  as  we  have  seen,  is  followed  by 
what  we  may  call  punishment,  as  the  natural  result  of  the 
act,  without  reference  to  how  or  why  the  violation  was 
caused  ;  and  it  seems  exceedingly  probable  that    in   the 
same  way,  and  for  the  same  reasons,  any  violation  of  the 
moral  law,  equally  without  reference  to  why  or  how  the 
violation  was  caused,  will  be  followed  by  what  we  do  call 
punishment,  though  equally  only  the  natural  result  of  the 
act.     So,   even  without  free-will,  infractions    of  the    law 
would  result  in  evil  (or  punishment)  enough  to  at  least 
teach  us  better,  and  the  consequences  would  be  repeated 
and  increased,  with  each  infraction,  until  we  did  better, 
here  or  hereafter.     In  other  words,  my  idea  is  that  God  is 
never  vindictive,  and   never   inflicts  punishment,  as   the 
word  is  usually  understood,  but  that  He  has  so  arranged 
His  plan  of  human  progress  that  man  can  work  his  way 
upward  only  through  much  tribulation  and  sorrow,  the 
pains  and  penalties  visited  on  him  being  only  apparent 
evils,  but  really  necessary  educators  to  enable  him  to  work 
out  his  own  salvation,  and  teach  him  not  to  rely  on  others 
to  do  it  for  him  ;  that  it  is  only  in  Jewish  and  Christian 
(or  other)  fiction  that  there  can  be  a  scape-goat,  and  that 
man  must  bear  the  consequences  of  his  ignorance  and 


66  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

work  out  his  own  redemption,  advancing  step  by  step  in 
knowledge,  and  growing  better  as  he  grows  wiser,  the 
same  law  of  growth  applying  to  his  moral,  that  applies  to 
his  physical  and  mental  nature. 

This  seems  to  be  HOW  God  works.  WHY  He  should 
have  adopted  such  a  plan  ;  why  growth  and  decay  should 
have  been  made  a  law  of  nature  in  every  department — 
physical,  mental,  psychic  ;  why  we  should  be  left  to  our 
own  efforts  to  learn  the  lessons  necessary  for  our  being 
and  progress,  I  cannot  even  guess.  It  is  sufficient  for  me 
to  know  that  He  has  adopted,  it,  and  that  in  this  view 
there  is  no  conflict  between  His  goodness  and  our  tempo- 
rary sufferings. 

For  I  gather  from  these  theories  (though  they  are  but 
imperfect  at  best)  that  evil  is  the  result,  in  physical, 
mental,  and  psychological  nature,  of  ignorance,  and  is 
the  means  of  instruction  and  progress.  Sin  is  ignorance, 
evil  is  instruction,  study  the  remedy,  and  knowledge  the 
reward  :  and  all  are  but  the  means  of  carrying  out  God's 
great  laws — Evolution  and  Compensation. 

Physical  pain  and  disease  are  the  results  of  the  viola- 
tion of  physical  laws,  and  are  warnings  against  further 
infractions  ;  and  the  unpleasant  results  of  the  violation  of 
the  moral  law,  whether  the  suffering  be  here  or  hereafter, 
serve  to  recall  us  to  our  duty  :  and  all  are  educators,  as  I 
have  just  said.  Grief,  and  pains  of  that  character,  are  the 
price  we  pay  for  purification,  progress,  and  the  capacity 
to  rejoice.  They  are  the  minor  chords  that  give  a  tender 
melancholy  to,  and  soften  the  asperities  of,  the  music  of 
our  lives  ;  the. sharp  dissonances  which,  harsh  and  unpleas- 
ant by  themselves,  yet  lead  to  higher  harmonies  than  we 
have  known  before.  Without  contrasts  pleasure  would 
only  pall ;  happiness  itself  would  cloy. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         61/ 

Death  is  considered  a  fearful  evil.  So  it  is  to  the  living, 
but  I  doubt  if  it  be  so  to  the  dead.  Could  the  worm 
formulate  its  thoughts,  it  would  probably  think  death  an 
unmixed  evil,  but  the  butterfly  would  probably  regard  it 
as  a  wondrous  blessing.  And  I  think  it  is  so  with  man. 
It  is  but  a  "  going  before  "  ;  the  birth  of  the  spirit.  And 
the  grief  and  desolation  of  those  who  stay  behind  are  the 
result  in  a  great  measure  of  the  fearful  teachings  of  the 
Church.  Could  we  but  believe  that  the  parting  was 
merely  temporary,  and  that  while  punishment  was  inevita- 
ble, it  was  not  endless,  that  it  was  proportionate  and  just 
(and  nature  points  in  that  direction)  rather  than  vindic- 
tive, and  that  it  would  certainly  finally  result  in  the  eternal 
benefit  and  happiness  of  the  dead,  many  of  the  pangs  of 
grief  would  be  assuaged. 

I  believe,  therefore,  that  much  of  what  we  call  sin  and 
evil  are  so  but  seemingly,  and  are  the  means,  in  God's 
providence,  of  working  out  the  progress  of  man  here  and 
hereafter  ;  and  in  this  view  of  the  case  the  existence  of 
evil  and  the  goodness  of  God,  though  mysterious,  and 
in  a  great  degree  incomprehensible,  are  not  necessarily 
inharmonious. 

Another  very  serious  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  free- 
will, in  connection  with  the  theory  of  the  Devil,  is  that  it 
forces  the  Church  to  represent  God  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  Devil  on  the  other,  each  engaged  in  endeavoring  to 
lead  mankind  to  himself :  the  one  urging  upon  him  the 
advantage  of  a  life  of  temporary  self-denial  here,  to  be 
followed  by  an  eternity  of  bliss  hereafter  ;  the  other  sug- 
gesting the  wisdom  of  making  the  most  of  the  present 
rather  than  trusting  to  an  unknown  future  ;  and  as  in  the 
only  other  instance  in  which  the  Devil  is  represented  as 
contradicting  God  it  turned  out  that  the  Devil  was  right 


68  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY. 

(Gen.  ii.,  16,  17  ;  iii.,  4),  men  are  disposed  to  listen  to  the 
blandishments  of  the  Enemy,  and  accept  present  pleasure 
rather  than  postpone  their  enjoyment  to  an  uncertain 
hereafter.  All  of  which — this  idea  of  strife  between  the 
supreme  God  and  the  supreme  Devil — this  struggle  for 
supremacy,  this  electioneering,  so  to  speak,  on  the  part  of 
the  almighty  Ruler  of  heaven  and  earth,  with  the  advan- 
tage rather  on  the  side  of  the  Devil — is  to  my  mind  sheer 
blasphemy,  pure  and  unadulterated,  unworthy  of  the  age 
in  which  we  live,  degrading  to  those  who  believe  it. 


THE  ARGUMENT. 

PROPOSITION   III. 

III.  The  councils  of  the  Church,  by  which  her  creeds 
were  formulated,  were  not  inspired,  but  very  fallible, 
assemblies  of  exceedingly  natural  men;  and  their 
decrees  are  conflicting,  unreasonable,  and  utterly 
without  authority. 

I  give  the  remarks  contained  in  my  first  communication 
to  the  Bishop  which,  with  his  reply,  brought  on  the 
discussion  of  this  point : 

Nearly  every  dogma  of  any  of  the  Churches  has  been 
established  through  debate,  by  argument  and  discussion, 
and  determined  by  vote.  Reasoning  is  permitted,  nay, 
encouraged,  so  long  as  it  is  on  the  side  of  the  majority. 
The  subject  only  becomes  too  sacred  for  discussion  after 
it  has  been  voted  a  dogma.  Reason  may  be  used  to  de- 
termine what  is  true,  but  having  once  been  decided  to  be 
true,  by  a  majority  vote,  Reason  must  be  ever  after 
silent,  unless  a  majority  "  go  back"  on  the  old  truth, 
and  so  declare  by  another  vote,  when  the  old  truth 
becomes  error,  and  the  old  error,  by  the  magic  of  numeri- 
cal strength,  becomes  truth,  and,  in  its  turn,  sacred  and 
unassailable. 

To  which  the  Bishop  said  : 

"  Your  remarks  about  dogmas  are  to  me  extremely 
novel.     You  assert  that  what  at  one  time  have  been  held 

69 


7<3  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

to  be  dogmas  '  too  sacred  for  discussion,'  have  in  the  lapse 
of  time  been  '  by  the  magic  of  numerical  strength  '  de- 
clared errors.  I  reply  to  this  assertion  by  simply  challen- 
ging you  to  show  one  solitary  dogma  which  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  taught  in  one  age  as  a  dogma  of  revealed 
religion,  and  which  she  afterwards  repudiated  as  an  error ; 
or  that  what  she  repudiated  in  one  age  as  an  error,  she  in 
a  succeeding  age  propounded  as  a  dogma." 

This  drew  from  me  the  following  reply  which  I  give, 
changing  the  pronouns  so  as  to  relieve  it  from  its  episto- 
lary character,  and  making  some  merely  verbal  alterations : 

I  am  challenged  to  adduce  one  solitary  dogma  which 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  taught  as  true  and  afterwards 
repudiated  ;  or  to  show  that  she  repudiated  as  error  in 
one  age  what  she  afterwards  propounded  as  a  dogma. 

I  think  that  examples  may  be  found  in  the  facts  which 
I  give  below,  but  I  give  them  with  a  full  knowledge  that 
they  may  be  explained  away  in  a  manner  highly  satisfac- 
tory to  the  faithful  by  either  denying  the  authority  of  the 
council,  or  claiming  that  the  view  was  always  held,  though 
not  made  a  dogma.  I  will  endeavor  to  anticipate  such 
explanations  as  I  go  along,  to  save  time. 

My  authority  for  the  facts  which  follow  is  Voltaire's 
Dictionnaire  Philosophique,  Edition-Touquet,  Paris,  1822, 
titles  "  Conciles,"  "  Christianisme,"  from  which  I  translate 
freely.  I  know  that  Voltaire  is  in  very  bad  odor  with  ortho- 
dox Christians,  but  these  facts  are,  I  believe,  undisputed, 
and  can  be  found  stated  by  other  authors.  I  have  used 
Voltaire  because  his  book  is  the  most  convenient  to  my 
hand. 

The  first  oecumenical  council  was  convoked  by  Con- 
stantine  (not  a  very  exemplary  Christian)  at  Nice  in  the 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         71 

year    325.     The  occasion  of  this  council  seems  to  have 
been   certain  disputes  among   the  clergy  of  Alexandria 
touching  the  divinity  of  Jesus.     Constantine  sent  a  letter 
to  them  by   Hosius,  Bishop  of  Cordova,  remonstrating 
with  them  for  quarrelling  over  so  small  a  matter ;  but  his 
letter  not  having  the  effect  he  expected,  he  convoked  the 
council  to  set  the  matter  at  rest.      At  that  council  some 
held  the  opinions  of  Origen,  as  set  forth  in  his  6th  chapter 
against  Celsus  :  *  "  We  present  our  prayers  to  God  by  Jesus, 
who  holds  the  middle  between  natures  created  and  natures 
uncreated,  who  brings  us  the  grace  of  his  father,  and  pre- 
sents our  prayers  to  the  great  God  in  the  quality  of  our 
Pontiff."      They  based  their  position  on    Jesus'    saying 
"  My  father  is  greater  than  I  ";  and  they  regarded  Jesus 
as  the  first-born  of  the  creation,  and  the  purest  emanation 
of  the  Supreme  Being,  but  not  precisely  as  God.     Their 
opponents,  on  the  strength  of  the  text  "  My  father  and  I 
are  one,"  took  the  position  that  Jesus  was  God,  in  spite 
of  the  explanation  that,  in  view  of  the  other  saying,  this 
last  meant :  "  My  father  and  I  have  the  same  design,  the 
same  will;    I  have  no  other  desires  than  those   of   my 
father."      But    Eusebius   of   Nicomedia,   with  seventeen 
other  bishops,  and  a  number  of  priests,  including  Arius, 
were  voted  down  by  a  vote  of  299  to  18,  and  the  council 
decided  that  "  Jesus  is  the  only  son  of  God,  begotten  of 
the  Father,  God.  of  God,  light  of  light,  very  God  of  very 
God,  consubstantial  with  the  Father.     We  believe  also  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc. 

Up  to  this  time  the  priests  of  the  Church  certainly 
taught  different  views  upon  the  subject  (or  it  were  un- 
necessary to  call  the  council),  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that 
some  of  both  sides  were  saved.      But  this  council,   not 

1  Cf.  Bk.  v.,  ch.  iv.  ;  Bk.  vi.,  ch.  xlvii.-xlviii.  ;   Bk.  viii. ,  ch.  xiii.-xxvi. 


72  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

convoked  by  the  Church,  but  by  an  Emperor  who  was  at 
that  time  not  even  baptized  (that  ceremony  having  been 
performed  on  his  death-bed),  decided  that  henceforth  the 
belief  thus  formulated  must  be  held  under  pain  of  dam- 
nation. 

In  359  the  Emperor  Constantius  assembled  the  two  coun- 
cils of  Rimini  and  Seleucis,  corresponding  with  each  other, 
and  composed  of  600  bishops  and  a  large  number  of  priests, 
and  these  councils  undid  the  work  of  the  council  of  Nice, 
and  rejected  the  word  "  consubstantial  ";  but  these  two 
councils  are  not  recognized  as  valid  by  the  Church  ;  why, 
I  know  not,  except  that  their  action  was  afterwards  found 
to  be  distasteful  to  a  majority.  Be  that  as  it  may,  a  grand 
council  met,  by  order  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  at 
Constantinople  in  381,  with  150  bishops,  and  this  council 
anathematized  that  of  Rimini.  That  is  to  say,  these  150 
bishops  undid  what  the  600  bishops  had  done.  St. 
Gregory  Nazienzen  presided, — the  same  who  wrote  to 
Procopius  :  "  I  fear  these  councils  ;  I  have  never  known  one 
which  did  not  do  more  harm  than  good,  or  which  had  a 
good  end  ;  the  spirit  of  disputation,  vanity,  ambition,  rule 
in  them  ;  he  who  wishes  to  reform  the  wicked  exposes 
himself  to  be  denounced  without  succeeding  in  his 
corrections." 

This  council  added  to  the  Nicene  creed  :  "  Jesus  Christ 
is  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
He  was  crucified  for  us  under  Pontius  Pilate.  He  was 
buried,  and  rose  again  the  third  day,  according  to  the 
Scriptures.  He  is  seated  on  the  right  of  the  Father:  We 
believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  vivifying  Lord,  who  proceeds 
from  the  Father,  and  is  glorified  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son." 

Here  again  we  have  more  things  made  necessary  to  be 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         73 

believed,  which,  while  perhaps  taught  by  many  before, 
were  not  declared  essential  until  then.  And  remark  that 
this  council  did  not  find  out  that  the  Holy  Ghost  pro- 
ceeded from  both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  but  announces 
it  as  proceeding  only  from  the  Father ;  so  that  we  might 
then  have  been  saved  without  believing  that  it  proceeded 
from  both.  It  was  toward  the  ninth  century  that  the 
Latin  Church  discovered,  by  degrees,  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
proceeded  from  both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  when  it 
so  announced,  though  Pope  John  VIII.  had  declared  "  Ju- 
das "  those  who  so  believed. 

In  431  Theodosius  II.  convoked  the  grand  council  of 
Ephesus.  Nestorius,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  who  had 
persecuted  many  for  not  agreeing  with  him  in  theology, 
was,  in  his  turn,  persecuted  for  holding  that  the  Holy 
Virgin,  mother  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  not  the  mother  of 
God,  because,  as  he  said,  Jesus  being  the  Word,  Son  of 
God,  consubstantial*  with  the  Father,  Mary  could  not  be 
at  the  same  time,  mother  of  God  the  Father  and  God  the 
Son.  St.  Cyril  bitterly  opposed  him.  Nestorius  de- 
manded and  obtained  an  oecumenical  council.  Nestorius 
was  condemned  ;  but  Cyril  was  deposed  by  a  committee 
of  the  council. 

The  Emperor  undid  what  the  council  did,  but  per- 
mitted it  to  reassemble.  Rome  sent  deputies,  but  they 
arrived  very  late.  Trouble  increasing,  the  Emperor 
arrested  both  Nestorius  and  Cyril,  and  ordered  all  the 
bishops  to  their  respective  churches,  and  no  conclusion 
was  reached.     Such  was  the  famous  council  of  Ephesus. 

Another  grand  council  at  Ephesus  in  449.  The  bishops 
said  that  those  who  would  divide  Jesus  in  two  should 
themselves  be  torn  in  two.  Dioscorus,  Bishop  of  Alex- 
andria, presided.     The  two  natures  of  Jesus  were  anathe- 


74  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

matized.  The  disputants  fought  in  full  council ;  neither 
the  first  nor  the  last  attempt  to  determine  questions  of 
faith  by  physical  force. 

In  451  the  grand  council  of  Chalcedon  established 
that  Jesus  had  two  natures  and  one  person. 

Having  established  one  person  and  two  natures,  it  be- 
came necessary  to  determine  how  many  wills  Jesus  had. 
So,  in  680,  more  than  two  hundred  years  later,  a  general 
council  at  Constantinople  decided  that  Jesus  had  two 
wills,  and  condemned  Pope  Honorius  I.,  who  held  that 
Jesus  had  but  one.  This  was  before  the  Pope  had  been 
ascertained  to  be  infallible. 

In  787  was  convoked  the  second  council  of  Nice,  by 
Irene,  mother  of  Constantine,  but  in  the  name  of  her  son. 
Her  husband  had  abolished  the  adoration  of  images  as 
contrary  to  the  simplicity  of  the  first  centuries,  and  favor- 
ing idolatry  ;  Irene  re-established  it ;  she  spoke  in  the 
council.  Two  legates  of  Pope  Adrian  IV.  were  present, 
but  did  not  speak,  as  they  did  not  understand  Greek. 

In  794  Charlemagne  called  a  numerous  council  at 
Frankfort.  It  characterized  the  second  council  of  Nice 
as  an  impertinent  and  arrogant  synod  held  in  Greece  for 
the  adoration  of  pictures. 

In  842  another  grand  council  at  Constantinople,  con- 
voked by  the  Empress  Theodora,  where  the  adoration  of 
images  was  solemnly  established. 

Omitting  the  numerous  intervening  councils  as  not 
being  necessary  to  the  present  discussion,  we  find  that  the 
dogmas  of  transubstantiation  and  confession  were  first 
announced  at  the  council  of  Lateran,  in  121 5,  under  Pope 
Innocent  III. 

However  much  the  doctrine  of  penance,  as  it  is  now 
called,  may  have  been  taught  or  practised   by  the  Chris- 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  7$ 

tian  Church  (as  it  was,  and  is,  by  many  others)  before 
that  time,  it  was  then  that  confession  was  made  obligatory. 
Before  that  time  God  would  forgive  sins  without  confes- 
sion to  a  man,  be  he  priest  or  otherwise,  or  an  infallible 
Church  would  surely  not  have  waited  twelve  hundred 
years  to  inform  the  faithful  to  the  contrary  ;  but  from  and 
after  that  time  confession,  at  least  once  a  year,  became 
necessary  to  attain  that  forgiveness. 

And  so,  to  be  brief,  with  the  very  modern  dogmas  of 
the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  1854, 
and  papal  infallibility,  1870. 

I  here  stated  that  I  knew  that  the  Bishop  would  say 
that  some  of  these  councils  were  good  and  some  bad,  and 
that  the  good  councils  have  always  agreed,  and  were 
called  to  crush  out  heresies  which  had  taken  possession  of 
some  priests,  and  only  announced  what  had  always  been 
believed.  But  in  that  case  how  are  we  to  tell  the  true  from 
the  false  ?  Called  by  the  same  power,  consisting  of  the 
same  class  of  men,  some  recognized  by  Rome  and  con- 
demned by  Constantinople,  others  recognized  by  Constan- 
tinople and  condemned  by  Rome,  who  is  to  decide  ?  The 
Roman  Catholic  Church  accepts  what  pleases  it ;  the 
Greek  Catholic  Church  adopts  what  it  likes.  According 
to  Hefele,  Bishop  of  Rottenberg,  the  Roman  Church 
recognizes  twenty  councils,  while,  according  to  the  En- 
cyclopedia Britannica,  the  Greek  Church  recognizes  but 
seven,  and  the  English  Church  practically  only  the  first 
five.  Of  course  the  Bishop  would  claim  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  must  be  right,  as  it  is  infallible.  But 
as  that  infallibility  is  one  of  the  points  at  issue,  that  would 
hardly  be  an  answer. 

Let  us  try  to  look  at  the  question  by  the  aid  of  a  little 
unfettered    reason,    outside    of    these    councils    and    the 


76  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

Church  where  it  has  been  hampered  and  tied  down  by 
edicts,  dogmas,  and  creeds,  made  by  other  mortals  like 
ourselves,  and  forced  down  our  throats  under  the  most 
fearful  penalties. 

A  council  is,  necessarily,  either  to  establish  or  con- 
demn— that  is,  its  object  and  result  must  be  either  to 
establish  as  a  dogma,  or  belief,  of  the  Church  something 
which  had  not  before  been  a  dogma,  or  belief ;  or  to 
stamp  with  the  seal  of  its  disapprobation  some  idea  or 
belief  which  was  becoming  sufficiently  prevalent  to  be 
dangerous.  In  the  first  case,  that  is  if  the  object  be  to 
establish,  it  follows,  necessarily,  as  I  think,  that  it  is  con- 
voked because  in  the  course  of  time  theologians  have 
diverged  in  their  views,  some  one  or  more  entertaining  a 
doctrine  that  the  others  did  not.  His  or  their  views  were 
adopted  at  first  by  a  few,  then  by  more  and  more,  until 
in  the  course,  perhaps,  of  centuries  they  were  entertained 
by  a  majority  of  the  bishops,  the  views  of  the  lesser 
priests  counting  for  little  or  nothing.  New  ideas  being 
always  aggressive,  those  who  held  such,  as  soon  as  they 
felt  sure  that  they  were  a  majority  and  could  therefore 
control  it,  called  a  council,  and  the  new  idea  then  became 
a  dogma,  and  belief  in  it  an  essential  of  salvation. 

Or,  in  the  second  case,  that  is,  where  the  council  is  con- 
vened to  condemn,  it  means  nothing  more  or  less  than 
that  those  with  the  old  idea,  finding  the  new  idea  gaining 
ground  so  rapidly  as  to  threaten  to  become  dangerous  to 
the  old,  were  shrewd  enough  to  call  a  council  while  they, 
the  old-idea  men,  were  yet  in  the  majority,  and  therefore 
had  a  certainty  of  success  on  their  side. 

In  either  case  the  will  of  the  majority  is  declared  to  be 
the  will  of  God.  An  idea  prevails,  and  is  true,  not  from 
its  inherent  qualities,  but  from  the  number  of  adherents 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         J  J 

it  can  muster,  no  matter  what  the  motive  may  be  that 
prompts  men  to  its  support.  Many  men  lack  the  moral 
and  physical  courage  to  boldly  express  their  views  when 
they  have  the  full  assurance  that,  because  they  differ  from 
the  majority,  or  controlling  power,  they  will  be  certainly 
anathematized,  and  probably  banished  or  condemned  to 
death  ;  and  in  the  "  ages  of  faith  "  such  a  fate  was  by  no 
means  unusual  to  a  man  who  followed  his  own  conscience 
instead  of  the  wishes  of  his  superiors.  Therefore,  if  God 
would  not  allow  His  councils  to  err,  it  would  seem  that  He 
has  permitted  the  successors  of  His  apostles  to  use  some 
exceedingly  human,  but  not  very  creditable,  methods  of 
convincing  ;  and  has  not  hesitated  to  allow  His  cause  to 
be  supported  and  advanced  by  the  crimes  of  His  most 
prominent  and  honored  adherents,  rewarding  them  with 
riches  and  power  in  this  life,  and  glory  and  saintship  in 
the  next.  Or,  if  this  be  not  true,  if  God  did  not  sanction 
such  methods  of  argument,  then  it  would  perhaps  be 
difficult  to  accurately  determine  which  of  the  councils  He 
was  with  and  which  were  controlled  by  another  power. 

But  leaving  out  of  view  the  means  used  to  influence 
votes,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  history  would  seem  to  indi- 
cate were  not  always  entirely  reputable,  there  is  another 
view  to  be  taken  of  these  councils. 

Belief  is,  as  I  have  already  argued  (Prop.  I.,  I?.),  an 
involuntary  condition  of  the  mind,  influenced  and  con- 
trolled, it  may  be,  by  argument  and  facts,  but  entirely 
free  from  the  control  of  the  mere  will.  All  that  the  will  has 
to  do  with  it  is  that  it  may  cause  one  to  seek  for  or  avoid 
facts  or  reasons  to  influence  it.  Those  facts  or  reasons 
may  be  mere  confidence  in  another,  which  is  the  case 
generally.  But  having  once  formed  a  belief  (and  I  do  not 
mean  a  mere  acceptance  of  a  fact  or  idea),  that  belief  can- 


?$  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

not  be  gotten  rid  of  by  a  mere  desire,  no  matter  how 
strong  that  desire  may  be.  We  are  forced  to  believe 
much  that  is  disagreeable,  much  that  we  would  give 
worlds  to  disbelieve  ;  but  nothing  short  of  proof,  or  what 
is  considered  proof,  to  the  mind,  will  change  belief  to 
doubt,  or  doubt  to  belief.  And  this  is  particularly  the 
case  with  educated  thoughtful  persons,  not  because  they 
are  under  a  different  rule,  but  because  they  require 
stronger  reasons  and  better  attested  facts.  Therefore 
those  who  in  the  discussions  in  the  general  councils  remain 
unconvinced  and  vote  according  to  their  consciences,  if 
they  are  the  minority,  must  not  only  outwardly  conform 
to  the  new  order  of  things,  and  teach  as  truth  what  in 
their  souls  they  condemn  as  error,  but  they  must  actually 
forcibly  change  their  belief,  not  from  reasons  or  facts, 
but  by  the  command  of  the  majority,  or  be  forever 
damned. 

And  is  this  the  law  of  God  ?  Justice,  mercy,  truth,  all 
of  His  attributes  forbid.  That  which  for  centuries  was 
not  a  dogma,  and  not  a  necessity  of  salvation,  has  by  the 
force  of  numbers,  and  nothing  else,  become  essential  to 
save  us  in  the  future  ;  for  if  not  necessary,  why  should  the 
Church  insist  upon  it  ?  The  task  of  salvation,  taught  by 
the  Church  to  be  only  possible  through  the  mercy  of  God 
and  the  atoning  blood  of  Jesus,  has  still  more  difficulties 
thrown  around  it  by  a  Church,  which  claims  that  it 
bears  God's  own  and  only  commission  to  lead  the  world 
to  Him.  Millions  have  been  saved  without  believing  in 
it  in  the  past,  but  in  the  future  there  is  to  be  one  more 
requirement,  one  more  difficulty  to  conquer,  one  more 
strain  on  an  already  severely  taxed  faith,  one  more  thing 
(and  that  frequently  an  impossibility)  to  be  believed,  be- 
fore it  will  extend  its  all  powerful  and  only  aid  to  poor, 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  79 

weak,  erring  humanity.     If  the  Church's  ways  are  God's 
ways,  truly  the  peace  of  God  passeth  understanding. 
Such  are  my  reasons  for  saying,  in  my  first  paper  : 

"  Nearly  every  dogma  of  any  of  the  Churches  has  been  established  through 
debate,  by  argument  and  discussion,  and  determined  by  vote.  Reasoning  is 
permitted,  nay,  encouraged,  so  long  as  it  is  on  the  side  of  the  majority. 
The  subject  only  becomes  too  sacred  for  discussion  after  it  has  been  voted  a 
dogma.  Reason  may  be  used  to  determine  what  is  true,  but  having  once 
been  decided  to  be  true,  by  a  majority  vote,  reason  must  be  ever  after  silent, 
unless  a  majority  '  go  back  '  on  the  old  truth,  and  so  declare  by  another 
vote,  when  the  old  truth  becomes  error,  and  the  old  error,  by  the  magic 
of  numerical  strength,  becomes  truth,  and,  in  its  turn,  sacred  and  unas- 
sailable." 

Councils  of  the  bishops  of  the  Church  have  decided 
points,  and  other  councils  of  the  same  sort  have  reversed 
their  decisions.  Popes  have  held  views  which  other  popes 
have  condemned.  The  Church  requires,  as  essential,  that 
its  children  now  believe  what  in  former  years  they  were 
not  required  to  believe  ;  for  when  a  dogma  is  established 
by  a  council,  belief  in  it  is  essential,  though  until  so 
established  disbelief  is  countenanced.  Notably  is  this  the 
case  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception. 
Pope  Sixtus  IV.  directed  that  those  who  held  different 
views  on  the  subject  should  be  tolerant  towards  each 
other  under  pain  of  excommunication.  I  hardly  think 
Leo  XIII.  would  issue  such  a  bull. 

It  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  say 
that  this  or  that  council  should  not  be  recognized  ;  or  that 
this  or  that  pope  was  not  authority  as  he  spoke  only  as  a 
man,  and  not  as  the  head  of  the  Church — not  ex  cathedra. 
I  should  suppose  600  bishops  at  Rimini  and  Seleucis  as 
apt  to  have  God  with  them,  and  be  right,  as  1 50  bishops 
at  Constantinople  twenty-two  years  later.  I  should  think 
that  St.  Gregory's  opinion  of  such  councils  is  entitled  to 


80  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

some  respect  inasmuch  as  he  had  presided  over  one  of 
them.  I  should  consider  Honorius  I.  as  infallible  as 
Pius  IX.,  and  would  not  expect  either  to  have  announced, 
as  the  head  of  the  Church,  that  to  be  true  which  as  a  man 
he  did  not  believe. 

In  fact  I  would  be  afraid  to  blindly  believe  in  any  pope 
or  council  for  fear  that  some  other  pope  or  council  might 
hereafter  condemn  the  one  I  followed — for  if  I  had  gone 
to  heaven  for  agreeing  with  Honorius  I.,  I  might  have 
been  translated  to  hell  for  differing  from  Pius  IX. 

So,  as  this  whole  question  of  religion  is,  in  my  opinion, 
by  far  the  most  important  a  man  can  consider,  I  have 
preferred  to  do  my  own  thinking. 

This  is  called  an  "  infidel  age."  If  that  means  that  it  is 
disposed  to  be  unfaithful  to  creeds  that  have  no  other 
claim  to  respectability  than  age,  and  the  names  of  those 
who  have  held  them,  I  think  the  age  correctly  named. 
Modern  cultivated  thought  tends  to  reject  anything  and 
everything  which  depends  alone  upon  "authority" — that  is, 
on  any  man's  or  men's  dictum.  And  this  I  think  is  because, 
as  the  mind  of  man  is  developed  by  contact  with  others, 
and  enlarged  by  experience  and  more  extended  observa- 
tion and  study  ;  as  it  finds  that  the  ideas  so  reverently 
held  by  one  are  utterly  disbelieved  by  others  who  are  as 
well  informed,  as  intelligent,  as  learned,  as  good ;  as  it 
realizes  the  fact  of  the  utter  inability  of  a  man  to  control 
his  belief,  it  begins  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  a  theology 
which  teaches  that  salvation  is  dependent  upon  that  which 
is  beyond  the  man's  control ;  it  refuses  to  believe  that  a 
pure,  just,  all  powerful  God  will  condemn  the  man  who 
hears,  who  thinks,  who  prays,  who  reasons,  who  seeks  for 
truth  with  all  the  means  at  his  command,  and  finds  that 
which  he  in  his  soul  holds  true,  because  forsooth  the  truth 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         8 1 

thus  found  is  not  accepted  by  a  self-complacent  fraction 
of  His  people;  and  doubt  thus  entering  into  the  mind, 
freeing  it  from  the  thraldom  of  the  past,  the  whole  sub- 
ject has  been  taken  up  by  classes  of  people  who  had 
hitherto  been  blind  followers  of  precedent,  and  more  true 
thought  is  now  given  to  theology,  in  its  largest  sense, 
than  ever  before. 

And  this,  I  think,  accounts  for  the  increased  and  in- 
creasing opposition,  in  quantity  and  quality,  to  modern 
dogmatic  Christianity. 

I  have  thought  it  best  to  give  the  whole  of  this  part  of 
the  correspondence,  including  my  numerous  very  freely 
translated  excerpts  from  Voltaire,  though  I  might  have 
cited  the  same  facts  from  more  generally  approved 
writers  :  because  it  permits  me  to  show  by  the  Bishop's 
next  letter,  and  my  reply,  the  sort  of  personal  arguments 
used  by  the  Church  when  she  is  hard  pressed,  and  because 
I  wish  to  vindicate  by  the  simple  truth  one  whom  I  regard 
as  an  able,  earnest,  and  conscientious  friend  of  humanity, 
who  battled  gloriously  in  behalf  of  truth  and  free-thought ; 
and  whom,  because  he  was  such,  and  therefore  her  enemy, 
the  Church,  taking  advantage  of  and  magnifying  defects 
and  weaknesses  without  which  he  would  hardly  have  been 
human,  has  pursued  with  relentless  vindictiveness  and 
unscrupulous  malignity  into  his  grave,  and  whose  memory 
she  has  striven  to  blacken  by  scandalous  falsehoods 
fabricated  and  uttered  in  the  name  of  God. 

To  which  the  Bishop  replied  : 

"You  have  treated  me,  in  your  second  paper,  to  a  long 
history  of  Church  councils.  You  triumphantly  exclaim, 
here  are  councils  in  which  one  contradicts  what  another 
has  asserted  ;  and  you  add  :  '  I  know  that  you  will  say 

6 


82  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

that  some  of  these  councils  were  good  and  some  were  bad, 
and  that  the  good  councils  have  always  agreed.  But  how 
are  we  to  tell  the  true  from  the  false?  '  I  am  astonished 
that  you  should  take  as  your  guide  in  matters  of  Christian 
Church  history  such  a  writer  as  Voltaire.  You  seem  to 
have  the  luck  of  falling  in  with  very  unreliable  authors. 
Viscount  Amberly  is  bad  enough  for  theology — but  he  is 
a  cherub  when  compared  with  Voltaire  on  Christian 'his- 
tory. Were  a  man  to  quote  the  descriptions  of  Thaddeus 
Stevens  and  Ben  Butler  as  a  reliable  history  of  the  coun- 
cils of  the  leaders  of  the  late  Confederacy,  every  sensible 
man  would  smile  at  his  simplicity.  But  the  well-known 
prejudice  and  blind  passion  of  T.  Stevens  and  B.  F.  But- 
ler against  the  leaders  of  the  Confederacy  are  as  nothing 
when  compared  to  the  demoniacal  hatred  towards  Chris- 
tianity borne  by  that  Voltaire  whose  constant  expression 
was  '  ecrasez  Vinfame?  I  don't  wish,  however,  to  com- 
plain of  the  unfairness  of  asking  me  to  take  as  unbiased 
honest  history  the  garbled  accounts  of  this  sworn  enemy 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  whose  private  life  was,  if  possible, 
more  shameful  than  his  public  career  in  the  courts  of 
Prussia  and  France ;  but  what  does  surprise  me  is  that 
you  should  thus  place  on  the  witness-stand  a  liar  and 
modestly  ask  me  to  admit,  as  unqualified  truth,  his  tes- 
timony. That  Voltaire  is  a  liar,  it  suffices  for  me  to 
refer  to  the  American  Encylopcdia  —  which  in  its  very 
moderate  and  impartial  article  on  Voltaire  is  compelled 
to  declare  him  utterly  untrustworthy  as  an  historian.  But 
you  would  have  been  saved  all  reference  to  Voltaire  had 
you  been  acquainted  with  the  organization  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  The  Catholic  Church  is  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
in  this  world.  Christ  chose  as  the  visible  head  of  that 
Church  St.  Peter.     For  Christ  said  :  '  I  will  give  to  thee 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.  83 

the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  bind  upon  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven — and  what- 
soever thou  wilt  loosen  on  earth  shall  be  loosened  in 
heaven.'  Hence  St.  Peter  and  his  lawful  successors  have 
always  been  held  to  be  the  visible  head  in  that  great 
kingdom — the  Catholic  Church.  No  parliamentary  as- 
sembly, however  numerous,  would  be  considered  a  legal 
body  unless  legitimately  convoked  by  the  sovereign's  ap- 
probation ; — and  even  600  members  assembling  without 
the  royal  writ  would  not  be  regarded  as  a  legal  body,  and 
their  enactments  would  be  worthless  in  point  of  law. 
Had  you  remembered  this  you  would  not  have  said  :  '  I 
suppose  the  600  bishops  at  Rimini  as  apt  .  .  .  to  be  right 
as  150  bishops  at  Constantinople  ';  Rimini  was  wanting  in 
its  most  essential  characteristic.  For  the  enactments  of 
the  bishops  at  Rimini  were  all  rejected  by  the  head  of 
Christ's  kingdom  on  earth, — the  successor  of  St.  Peter, — 
the  Bishop  of  Rome.  But  the  comparison  between  earthly 
kingdoms  and  Christ's  immortal  kingdom  on  earth  '  clau- 
dicatj  like  all  comparisons.  For  Christ  not  only  placed 
Peter  at  the  head  in  giving  him  the  keys  of  his  kingdom, 
but  he  gave  Peter  the  command  to  strengthen  in  their 
faith  all,  even  the  apostles, — '  con  fir  ma  fratres  tuos.'  That 
Peter  might  be  able  to  do  that,  Christ  assured  them  that 
he  had  prayed  himself  for  Peter's  faith,  which  consequently 
would  never  fail.  For  that  reason  the  successors  of  Peter 
have  often,  in  assembling  bishops,  written  to  them 
directing  and  ordering  them  the  manner  in  which  they 
should  treat  subjects  which  were  to  be  broached  in  the 
councils.  Hence  when  you  ask,  '  How  shall  we  tell  the 
true  from  the  false  councils?  '  you  need  not  have  added 
the  nonsense :  '  I  know  that  you  will  say  some  of  these 
councils  were  good  and  some  were  bad,  and  the  good  have 


84  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

always  agreed  ' — I  will  say  no  such  foolishness.  It  was 
perfectly  gratuitous  in  you  to  place  such  assertions  in  my 
mouth.  For  like  every  true  Catholic  I  will  say  that  only 
those  councils  are  good  whose  decrees  have  met  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  the  visible  head  of  the  Church. 
Hence  Rimini,  and  many  others  which  you  cite  from 
Voltaire,  have  always  been  rejected  by  Catholics  because 
they  have  been  rejected  by  the  head  of  the  Church. 

"  When  again,  copying  from  the  worthless  statements  of 
Voltaire,  you  say :  '  Dogmas  of  transubstantiation  and 
confession  were  first  announced  at  the  council  of  Lateran, 
in  1 2 1 5,'  you  must  thank  such  a  guide  for  leading  you  into 
a  most  palpable  untruth.  Into  a  falsehood  equally  absurd 
has  Voltaire  led  you,  when  you  assert  in  '  842  another  grand 
council  at  Constantinople  .  .  .  the  adoration  of  im- 
ages was  solemnly  established.'  But  I  have  not  the  time 
to  follow  all  the  crude  ideas  and  infinitely  false  assertions 
contained  in  Voltaire's  account,  and  quoted  by  you.  Nor, 
in  logic  is  it  at  all  necessary.  For  a  lying  witness  is  no 
witness.  We  believe  that  there  is  a  God.  Consequently 
the  question  comes,  What  must  I  do  to  please  and  serve 
God  ?  Man  of  himself  can  have  but  a  faint  knowledge  of 
God.  None  of  us  have  seen  the  things  of  the  next  world. 
Consequently  what  can  we,  when  left  to  ourselves,  know 
of  the  mysterious  things  of  that  dark  eternity  which  none 
of  us  have  ever  seen — and  from  whose  bourne  no  traveller 
has  returned  to  tell  the  tale.  If  man  cannot  of  himself  know 
the  things  of  the  next  life  ;  if  he  cannot  know  what  he 
must  do  to  please  God — then  God  must  Himself  impart 
such  knowledge  of  Himself  and  the  next  world  as  may 
be  necessary  for  man.  And  this  God  has  done  ;  first  of 
all  to  Adam  and  Eve  in  Paradise  ;  after,  by  the  ministry 
of    Moses ;  and   finally,  God  has  sent  his  only  begotten 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         85 

son,  Jesus  Christ.  He,  taking  on  human  nature,  walked 
on  earth  and  taught  with  unerring  certainty  what  man 
should  do  to  please  God  ;  and  revealed  not  all  things  of. 
eternity,  but  as  much  concerning  them  as  it  was  pleasing 
to  God  that  we  should  know  in  this  brief  transit  through 
time  to  eternity.  We  believe,  therefore,  all  the  doctrines 
of  Christ.  But  the  question  arises,  How  are  we  to  know 
the  genuine  doctrines  of  Christ?  What  means  did  Christ 
adopt,  by  which  all  of  his  doctrines  might  be  conveyed  to 
future  ages,  pure  and  unadulterated  ?  Christ  formed  a 
corporate  body.  He  chose  the  first  twelve  of  that  body 
himself.  He  organized  that  body  by  selecting  and  pla- 
cing at  their  head  one  called  Peter.  These  he  carefully 
instructed  himself  for  several  years ;  and  even  stayed 
forty  days  on  earth  after  his  resurrection  instructing  them. 
Now,  having  fully  imparted  to  them  his  doctrines  before 
leaving  the  earth,  he  gave  them  the  broad  commission  : 
*  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations.'  '  I  am  with  you 
all  days,  even  until  the  end  of  the  world.'  These  indi- 
vidual twelve  men  could  not  teach  all  nations,  could  not 
live  *  till  the  end  of  the  world.'  It  was  therefore  a  cor- 
porate body  formed  by  Christ,  the  individuals  of  which 
might  die,  but  their  successors  in  the  corporate  body  were 
to  teach  all  nations  '  until  the  end  of  the  world.'  This 
body  corporate  was  made  by  God,  not  by  man.  God  can 
impart  perpetuity  to  His  works — man  cannot.  This  cor- 
porate body  is  not  an  institution  gotten  up  by  man. 
For  the  one  who  established  it,  being  God,  could  say  :  '  I 
am  with  you  all  days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the 
world.'  The  constant,  perpetual,  in-dwelling  and  abiding 
of  Christ,  in  and  with  that  corporate  teaching  body,  was 
promised  by  Christ  repeatedly,  and  under  a  variety  of  ex- 
pressions.    We  believe,  therefore,  that  Christ  is  with  this 


86  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

corporate  teaching  body,  constantly  upholding,  preserv- 
ing, and  keeping  it  from  error — even  as  the  soul  dwells  in 
the  body  and  gives  it  life.  Consequently,  we  have  only 
to  look  around  and  see  where  have  been  the  legitimate  suc- 
cessors in  that  corporate  body,  established  by  Christ,  and 
to  which  Christ  gave  the  commission  to  teach  all  nations, 
even  until  the  end  of  the  world.  In  all  days,  from  the 
time  when  Christ  instituted  that  corporate  body,  have  there 
been  the  bishops  who  can  trace  their  line  of  succession 
from  the  present  time  back  to  the  apostolic  age.  This 
corporate  body,  always  existing  under  the  guidance  and 
leadership  of  one  visible  head  as  Christ  had  in  the  be- 
ginning established  it,  has  the  commission  from  Christ  to 
teach,  and  has  taught  the  world.  This  corporate  body  is 
not  an  institution  of  man — else  it  would  have  shared  the 
fate  of  the  rest  of  human  institutions,  and  would  have 
gone  to  pieces  long  ago.  But  it  is  a  divine  institution, 
and  hence  has  resisted  the  shock  of  ages.  Hence,  Christ 
said :  'I  am  with  you  all  days.'  Now  this  corporate 
body  is  the  means  established  by  Christ  to  teach  all 
nations  his  doctrines.  It  is,  therefore,  to  teach  his  doc- 
trines— nothing  more — nothing  less.  Hence,  you  will 
understand  my  expression,  which  is  of  such  frequent  oc- 
currence with  Catholic  writers  from  the  beginning — 
i.e.  l  the  sacred  deposit  of  doctrines.'  By  this  sacred 
deposit  of  doctrines,  we  mean  the  doctrines  deposited 
with  the  apostles  —  this  corporate  teaching  body. 
Hence  the  Catholic  tradition — which  is  the  doctrine 
handed  down  from  age  to  age  by  the  ministry  of  the  cor- 
porate body  of  teachers  established  by  Christ.  Hence 
the  Catholic  Church  makes  no  new  revelation  of  doctrines 
— she  adds  nothing  and  takes  away  nothing  from  those 
original    doctrines.      She    teaches    those   doctrines — but 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         87 

makes  no  new  doctrines.  But  when,  in  the  long  course 
of  ages,  men  ask  for  fuller  explanations  of  these  same 
doctrines  ;  or  when  assertions  are  made  in  enmity  to  these 
doctrines,  she  must,  in  her  capacity  and  divine  commis- 
sion be  also  able  to.  speak  with  infallible  authority.  Just 
as  a  judge  makes  no  new  law,  but  simply  expounds  what 
is  law — and  has  been  law.  For  a  decision  we  must  take, 
not  the  popular  reports  or  accounts  concerning  judicial 
decisions,  but  the  very  matter  of  fact  of  the  law  decided. 
To  exemplify  what  I  say,  take  the  famous  Arian  heresy. 
What  was  really  decided  by  the  council  of  Nice  ?  Why, 
that  the  Son  was  '  consubstantialis  ' — ofxovawi — '  consub- 
stantial '  with  the  Father.  Arius  was  willing  to  call 
Christ  the  Son  of  God,  the  only-begotten — and,  indeed, 
read  the  creeds  drawn  up  from  time  to  time  by  the  Arians, 
and  almost  any  person  would  say  that  they  were  identical 
in  meaning  with  the  famous  Nicene  creed.  In  fact,  the 
learned  do  not  yet  agree  as  to  what  Arius  really  believed 
about  Christ.  One  thing  is  certain — Arius  denied  that 
the  Son  was  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  and  it  was 
just  this  which  the  Nicene  council  insisted  upon.  For 
read  the  speeches  and  works  of  an  Athanasius,  and  the 
other  fathers  of  that  council,  and  the  gist  of  their  whole 
discourse  is — the  constant  tradition  and  teaching  of  the 
Church,  the  sacred  deposit  of  doctrine,  has  always  been 
that  Christ  is  divine.  That  Christ  himself  taught ;  that 
the  apostles  taught ;  for  that  the  countless  army  of  martyrs 
died  ;  that  the  Church  has  always  taught.  If  then  Christ 
is  divine,  how  can  Arius  assert,  argued  the  fathers  of  the 
Nicene  council,  that  Christ  is  not  '  consubstantialis  '  with 
the  Father?  For  if  not  consubstantial,  then  He  must 
have  another  and  a  different  nature  from  the  Father.  If 
another,  then  not  a  divine,  nature — for  there  cannot  be 


88  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

two  divine  natures.  If  Christ  had  not  a  divine  nature,  he 
was  in  no  sense  of  the  word  divine.  Hence  the  council 
declared  '  anathema '  to  any  one  who  would  assert  that 
the  Son  was  not  consubstantial  with  the  Father.  Hence, 
too,  the  terrible  war  which  the  Arians  waged  against  the 
word  ■  consubstantial.'  That  word  was  a  clincher.  It 
admitted  no  cavilling.  The  Arians  were  willing  to  give  a 
Pacific  Ocean  of  high-sounding  titles  to  the  Son.  For 
they  were  all  susceptible  of  interpretation  which  taught 
that  the  Son  of  God  is  not  divine.  But  the  word,  con- 
substantial, admitted  of  no  such  interpretation.  For  if 
consubstantial  to  the  Father,  then  the  Son  had  one  and 
the  same  nature  with  the  Father,  whose  nature  was  the 
divine — and  consequently  the  Son  had  a  divine  nature. 
This,  therefore,  was  a  fuller,  more  explicit  teaching  of  a 
doctrine  which  had  been  held  from  the  beginning.  But 
not  a  new  doctrine  brought  about  by  the  force  of  num- 
bers, as  you  have  assserted,  and  which  was  to  be  foisted 
upon  an  unwilling  world. 

"  I  might  go  through  with  all  the  doctrinal  decisions  of 
the  various  councils,  and  demonstrate  this  uniform  con- 
duct of  the  Church.  For  brevity's  sake,  however,  I  will 
examine  the  famous  infallibility  question. 

"  The  council  of  the  Vatican,  in  1870,  published  the  de- 
cree :  '  We  declare  the  Roman  Pontiff  when  he  speaks, 
ex-cathedra  possesses  that  infallibility  promised  by  Christ 
to  His  Church,  and  therefore  such  definitions  are  of 
themselves,  and  not  merely  when  they  shall  have  received 
the  consent  of  the  Church,  unalterable.'  Now  the  decree 
itself  gives  us  the  cue  to  the  history  of  the  case.  Louis 
XIV.,  King  of  France,  not  satisfied  with  having  absorbed 
in  himself  all  the  powers  of  the  French  government 
{I'etat  c'est  moi),  yielded  also  to  the  temptation  which  has 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         89 

so  often  assaulted  kings  in  every  age,  to  dabble  in  the- 
ology. Hence  was  gotten  up  what  was  known  as  the 
Gallican  party.  They  were  Catholics — of  course — for 
was  not  their  patron — the  king — his  most  Catholic  Ma- 
jesty? They  acknowledged  the  Pope  to  be  the  vicar  of 
Christ — the  visible  head  of  the  Church — the  one  to  pre- 
side in  all  the  oecumenical  councils — the  supreme  judge 
in  questions  of  faith  and  morals — the  successor  to  St. 
Peter's  place  and  rights  and  prerogatives  for  the  govern- 
ment of  Christ's  kingdom  on  earth — the  one  for  whose 
faith  Christ  had  prayed  that  it  should  never  fail — the  one 
who  had  received  the  command  to  strengthen  in  the  faith 
all  his  brethren — the  divinely  appointed  shepherd  to  feed, 
not  only  all  the  lambs,  but  the  sheep  also.  Well,  the  un- 
sophisticated reader  will  say :  What  more  do  you  desire? 
But  with  all  their  grand  titles  the  Gallicans  foisted  in  one 
little  clause.  That  little  clause  was  the  following:  The 
decrees  of  the  Pope  had  first  to  be  accepted  by  all  the 
bishops  of  the  Catholic  world  before  they  had  the  legiti 
mate  binding  force  in  conscience.  How  nicely  did  this 
little  clause  destroy  the  high-sounding  titles  given  to  the 
Pope.  The  cunning  subtlety  of  the  Gallicans  reminds  us 
of  the  serpentine  spirit  of  the  Arians.  Christ,  said  the 
Arians,  was  the  Son  of  God,  Light  of  light,  begotten  be- 
fore all  ages,  etc.,  etc.,  but  then  you  see  he  was  not  con- 
substantial  with  the  Father.  The  Pope,  said  the  Gallicans, 
is  the  head  of  the  Church,  the  supreme  judge,  the  shep- 
herd to  rule  the  lambs  and  the  sheep — but  then,  you  see, 
before  his  decisions  as  supreme  judge,  and  regulations 
for  the  flock,  are  binding,  the  community  must  accept 
his  decisions,  the  sheep  must  endorse  the  arrangements  of 
the  shepherd.  Hence  the  decree  of  the  Vatican  Council 
was  necessary,  and  hence,  too,  it  was  worded  :     '  The  defi- 


90  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

nitions  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  are  of  themselves,  and  not 
merely  when  they  shall  have  received  the  consent  of  the 
Church,  unalterable.'  For  that  reason  many  of  the  fathers 
of  the  Vatican  considered  it  unnecessary  to  pass  the  above 
decree.  For  if  the  Pope  is  truly  the  vicar  of  Christ,  as 
all  believe,  does  it  not  seem  superfluous  to  say  that  his 
decrees  are  not  to  be  reformed  by  the  bishops  of  the 
Church  at  large  ?  Nor  was  this  decision  of  the  Vatican 
council  a  new  doctrine  brought  about  by  mere  discussions 
of  the  learned,  as  you  suppose  ;  a  mere  new  doctrine  that 
the  unfortunate  world  had  not  dreamed  of  before,  but 
now  was  compelled  to  believe  under  pain  of  damnation. 
Or  rather,  was  it  not  just  like  the  Nicene  and  other  cases? 
Before  the  council  of  Nice,  Christ  was  called  the  Son  of 
God,  worshipped,  adored,  and  honored  with  every  divine 
honor.  When  the  Council  of  Nice  issued  its  decree  as- 
serting against  Arius  that  Christ  was  consubstantial  with 
the  Father,  this  was  a  broader  explanation  of  an  old  doc- 
trine— but  not  a  new  one.  Before  the  Vatican,  had  not 
the  Church  taught  that  the  Pope  was  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter,  was  the  visible  head  of  the  Church  ;  had  not  the 
Popes  decided  question  after  question  ;  had  they  not  pre- 
sided in  oecumenical  councils?  And  if,  for  a  moment, 
doubt  of  all  this  arise,  we  need  but  refer  to  the  writings 
of  that  Corypheus  of  the  opposition  to  the  Vatican  Coun- 
cil, Dr.  Doellinger.  What,  therefore,  was  this  much 
calumniated  and  misrepresented  decree,  but  a  clearer  ex- 
position of  what  had  always  been  the  teaching  of  the 
Church — a  putting  down  a  sophistry  which,  if  admitted, 
destroyed  her  doctrine  concerning  the  Pope.1    The  judge 

1  In  this  connection  the  following,  from  pp.  182,  183  of  Plain  Reasons 
Against  Joining  the  Church  of  Rome,  by  Richard  Frederick  Littledale, 
London  and  New  York,  1880,  is  interesting  : 

"  It  may  serve  to  show  what  divergence  there  was  quite   lately  on   this 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         9 1 

on  the  bench  does  not  make  a  new  law  ;  but  the  judge  must 
be  there  to  decide  what  is  the  law,  when  ignorance  or  the 
sophistry  of  unprincipled  men  would  put  interpretations 
which  would  destroy  the  law.  Christ  has  established  a 
corporate  body,  duly  organized,  under  one  visible  head, 
and  has  given  it  the  commission  to  teach  all  nations.  It 
must  evidently  be  able  to  teach  when,  in  the  course  of 
ages,  factions  and  bad  men,  as  it  is  to  be  expected,  may 
bring  up  their  quibbles,  their  sophisms,  which  would  tend 
to  corrupt  that  sacred  deposit  of  doctrine  entrusted  by 
Christ  to  her  to  be  taught  to  the  world.  And  that  this 
corporate  body  has  done,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles 
down  to  the  present  time.  It  has  received  the  commission 
to  teach,  not  politics,  not  the  physical  sciences,  but  '  what- 
soever I  [Jesus  Christ]  have  commanded  you' ;  in  other 
words,  to  impart  to  all  nations  those  doctrines  which  it 
has  pleased  God  to  reveal  to  the  world.  While  these 
truths  are  many,  and  sufficient  for  us  in  this  life,  eternity 
will,  no  doubt,  reveal  countless  others  to  our  eyes  when 
we  see  Him  face  to  face  who  is  infinite  perfection — when 
we  see  God  just  as  He  is.  [This  omission  is  ex- 

plained farther  on,  and  is  of  purely  personal  matter,  not 
affecting  the  discussion  on  either  side.] 

head  (Infallibility)  from  the  now  current  teaching,  to  cite  a  question  and. 
answer  from  an  anti-Protestant  work,  Keenan's  Controversial  Catechism. 
This  book  received  the  approval  and  license  of  Archbishop  Hughes,  of  New 
York,  and  the  editions  published  here  (London)  bear  the  formal  approbation 
of  the  four  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  in  Scotland,  dated  1846  and  1853. 
"  '  Q.  Must  not  Catholics  believe  the  Pope  himself  to  be  infallible  ?' 
"  'A.  This  is  a  Protestant  invention  ;  it  is  no  article  of  the  Catholic  Faith  : 
no  decision  of  his  can  bind,  on  pain  of  heresy,  unless  it  be  received  and  en- 
forced by  the  teaching  body — that  is,  by  the  bishops  of  the  Church.' 

"  Since  the  Vatican  decrees,  this  question  and  answer  have  been  quietly 
dropped  out  of  the  volume  by  a  clever  re-arrangement  of  the  type,  but 
pains  have  been  taken  to  make  it  seem  the  very  same  edition,  nay,  the  very 
same  thousand  of  that  edition,  and  no  hint  of  any  change  is  given." 


92  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

"  To  your  charge  then  that  her  doctrines  have  arisen  by 
the  discussions  of  men,  and  what  has  not  been  known  in 
one  age  has  by  the  mere  force  of  numerical  majorities 
been  made  new  articles  of  faith,  you  have  my  answer. 

"  In  your  first  paper  you  had  asserted  that  what  had  been 
held  as  a  sacred  truth  in  one  age  she  had  rejected  as  error 
in  another,  and  vice  versa.  I  challenged  you  to  show  one 
instance  of  such  conduct  on  her  part.  In  your  second 
paper,  unable  to  accept  the  challenge,  you  back  down 
from  that  proposition,  and  ask  me  to  accept  your  new 
charge,  which  is  :  '  She  [the  Church]  failed  to  recognize  as 
truth  in  one  age  what  she  afterwards  propounded  as  a 
dogma.'  Does  the  definition  made  at  Nice  of  '  consub- 
stantial '  offer  any  proof  that  she  had  hitherto  failed  to 
recognize  the  truth  that  Christ  was  divine  ?  Does  the 
definition  of  the  Vatican  council  that  the  decree  of  the 
sovereign  Pontiff  was  unalterable,  offer  any  proof  that  she 
failed  to  recognize  the  Pope  as  the  head  of  the  Church, 
the  supreme  judge  on  earth,  the  vicar  of  Christ,  etc.  ?  So 
far  from  this,  by  the  councils  of  Nice,  Ephesus,  Chalce- 
don,  Rome,  Constantinople,  and  all  the  way  down  to  the 
council  of  Trent  and  the  Vatican  they  are  and  have 
been  recognized.  What  the  fathers  then  taught  she  still 
teaches. 

"  You  conclude  by  kindly  insinuating  that  we  blindly 
believe  in  the  Pope  and  councils.  I  have  shown  you  that 
ours  is  not  a  blind  belief  in  any  man  or  men.  You  say 
that  '  I  have  preferred  to  do  my  own  thinking.'  Now,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  all  this  boast  which,  with  the  modern 
infidels,  you  make  about  '  rejecting  authority,'  and  doing 
your  '  own  thinking,'  is  both  unfounded  and  irrational. 
It  is  utterly  unfounded,  for  you  and  all  of  us,  in  the  daily 
concerns  of  life  even,  believe  many  things  on  the  author- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.         93 

ity  of  others,  and  let  others  do  the  thinking  for  us.  The 
Catholic  Church  does  not  ask  us  to  suppress  or  reject 
reason  in  order  to  be  a  member  of  her  Church.  Quite 
the  contrary.  She  has  ever  produced  such  master-minds 
as  a  St.  Augustine,  a  John  Chrysostom,  an  Anselm,  a 
Thomas  Aquinas,  a  Bossuet,  a  Fenelon,  and  in  our  own 
days  she  can  point  to  a  Bronson,  John  H.  Newman,  Man- 
ning, and  other  illustrious  children.  It  is  just  my  intel- 
lect which  tells  me  there  is  a  God.  In  accepting  this 
truth  I  am  only  uniting  with  the  great  intellects  of  every 
age — aye,  with  the  voice  of  all  the  human  family.  It  is 
not  suppressing  my  intellect,  but  following  its  luminous 
rays,  when  I  again  acknowledge  that  with  regard  to  the 
things  of  God,  whom  I  have  never  seen — with  regard  to 
the  things  of  the  next  world,  which  I  have  never  visited — 
my  intellect  cannot  be  expected  to  tell  me  much.  It  is 
by  following  my  intellect,  therefore,  that  I  conclude  that 
if  we  are  to  have  in  this  world  a  knowledge  of  God,  and 
the  things  of  eternity,  God  must  by  some  means  make 
known  to  us  the  knowledge  of  Himself,  and  the  things  of 
the  other  world.  My  own  intellect  tells  me  that  man,  by 
the  mere  efforts  of  his  own  intellect,  can  never  have  a 
knowledge  of  God  and  eternity  sufficient  for  his  spiritual 
wants.  Now  God  sent  Jesus  Christ  to  teach  us  the  truths 
of  God  and  the  hidden  realities  of  eternity.  Not  a  blind 
acquiescence  in  others'  opinions,  but  the  calm  exercise  of 
my  reasoning  faculties,  the  honorable  searching  of  the 
historical  evidence,  prove  a  demonstration  to  my  intellect, 
and  myriads  of  other  greater  intellects  than  mine  ever 
will  be,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  messenger  from  God, 
that  not  only  he  did  what  no  other  man  ever  did,  but 
that  he  did  what  a  mere  man  could  not  do,  or  attempt 
to  do.     Having  established  the  fact  that  Christ  was  the 


94  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

messenger  sent  into  this  world  by  God  to  teach  us  and 
instruct  us,  it  is  my  intellect  which  tells  me  that  I  must 
accept  as  truths  all  that  he  will  ask  me  to  believe.  But 
to  convey  his  doctrines  to  all  ages,  he  duly  organized  a 
corporate  body  of  men  who  were  to  hand  down  from  age 
to  age,  and  spread  abroad  to  all  men,  these  his  doctrines. 
Were  Jesus  Christ  a  mere  man,  then  this  corporate  body 
might  yield  like  other  human  institutions,  might  be 
broken  to  pieces  in  the  shock  of  ages,  and  might  fail 
to  convey  his  genuine  doctrines  to  the  world.  But  as  I 
said  before,  the  abundant  testimony  at  hand  shows  me 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  God.  He  therefore  can  do  what  a 
mere  man  cannot  do.  I  know,  therefore,  that  there  is 
truth  in  his  doctrines  and  stability  in  his  works.  This 
corporate  body  has  been  entrusted  with  the  duty  of  en- 
lightening the  world  with  truth  by  the  same  God  who 
commanded  the  sun  to  shed  its  life-giving  rays  upon  us. 
We  may  as  little  fear  the  one  to  fail  us  as  the  other. 
This  truth  is  made  doubly  certain  by  His  assurance,  '  I 
am  with  you  all  days,  even  till  the  end  of  the  world. 
They  that  hear  you  hear  me'  It  is,  therefore,  my  own 
intellect  which  tells  me  that  this  corporate  body,  insti- 
tuted by  God,  and  in  which  He  says  that  He  ever  dwells, 
guiding,  preserving,  animating  it,  should  be  listened  to  in 
telling  me  Christ's  doctrines.  Because  God  has  set  it  up  to 
shine  the  moral  truth  upon  the  world,  and  because  God  is 
ever  with  it  to  enable  it  to  do  so,  my  intellect  accepts  un- 
hesitatingly its  blessed  light. 

"  You  may  '  prefer  to  do  your  own  thinking  ' — but  how 
much  will  your  own  thinking  alone  teach  you  about  God, 
or  the  next  world  ?  Or  what  certainty  will  your  own 
thinking  give  you  of  that  infinite  Being  whom  you  have 
never  seen,   and   never  will    see   in   this    life?     Or   what 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         95 

knowledge  will  your  own  thinking  give  you  of  the  things 
of  eternity  ?  Why,  about  as  much  knowledge  as  a  man 
would  acquire  of  China,  who,  never  having  visited  China, 
and  being  too  strong-minded  to  trust  to  the  authority  of 
travellers'  books  concerning  China,  would  lock  himself  up 
in  his  room,  and,  perched  on  a  high  chair,  would  prefer  to 
do  his  own  thinking  about  China !  And  even  you  do  not 
do  your  own  thinking  ;  for  even  in  religion  you  have  been 
allowing  others  to  do  a  great  deal  of  thinking  for  you. 
Unfortunately,  instead  of  the  grand  old  doctors  of  the 
Church,  it  is  such  fellows  as  Viscount  Amberly  and  Vol- 
taire whose  thinking  you  have  adopted  !  As  a  gentleman 
of  culture  and  possessing  much  leisure  you  may  be  tempted 
to  try  your  own  thinking.  But  how  many  even  in  our 
own  age  of  cultivation  are  capable  to  rely  on  their,  solely 
on  their,  own  thinking  in  matters  of  religion  ?  And  God 
help  them  if  they  did  !  You,  even,  do  not  rely  on  your 
own  thinking  for  medicine,  mechanics,  jurisprudence,  and 
many  other  sciences  which  I  might  mention.  And,  strange, 
you  single  out  the  highest,  and  consequently  the  most 
profound,  of  sciences  wherein  to  laugh  at  authority,  and 
say  that  you  will  believe  only  what  you  acquire  by  your 
own  thinking. 

"  And  all  this  free-thinking  that  has  so  deeply  your  sym- 
pathy, what  is  it  leading  to  ?  Is  it  to  greater  peace,  happi- 
ness, law,  order,  and  true  enlightenment  ?  Let  the  socialism 
and  communism,  unknown  in  ages  of  faith,  answer.  Let 
the  socialism  and  communism  of  that  eminently  rational- 
istic and  anti-Catholic  government  of  Prussia  answer.  In 
fact  it  is  just  the  truly  cultivated  intellect  of  our  age  which 
is  paying  homage  to  the  Catholic  Church  as  never  before. 
The  splendid  literary  achievements  of  a  Voigt,  Gfrorer, 
Huebner,  Roscoe,  Strickland,  and  other  Protestants  have 


96  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

wiped    away    the    filthy    calumnies    of    Voltaire    and    his 
gang,   and   drawn   the   admiration   of   genius    upon    that 
glorious   teaching  corporate  body   established    by  Jesus 
Christ;   there  stands  that  corporate  teaching  body — the 
Catholic  Church — doing  now  what  it  was  founded  to  do 
nineteen  centuries  ago.     Macaulay,  bigoted  Protestant  as 
he  was,  has  in  his  famous  essay    grandly    depicted    her 
triumphs  over  the  effects   of    time  and    fearful   persecu- 
tions.   She  has  faithfully  taught  the  same  doctrines.    The 
decisions    of   her  councils   were    merely   the    anathemas 
against  the  impudent  denial  of  her  doctrines,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  image  breakers  of  the  East ;  or  they  were  the 
fuller  declarations  of  her  doctrines  made  necessary  by  the 
sophism    of  artful    men,  as    in   the  '  consubstantialis'  of 
Nice,  and  the  '  unalterable  '  of  the  Vatican  council.    Bold, 
bad  men,  like  Leo  the  Isaurian — and  other  crowned  ty- 
rants— have  tried  by  brute  force  to  destroy  her  doctrines ; 
the   artful   Arius,  the  Gallicans,  and   others  have  sought 
the  same  by  their  sophisms.     The  Catholic  Church  has 
met    the    one    and    the    other    kind   of    enemy  with  the 
anathema  that  defended  and  explained  the  doctrines  en- 
trusted to  her  ever  faithful  custody.     Just  the  cultivated 
intellect  of    the  age  has,  I  say  again,  done  the   Catholic 
Church    an    homage  unparalleled   in  the  history    of   the 
world.     For  amid  the  decay  and  wreck  of  other  systems, 
philosophical    and    religious,   there    she  stands,   the   city 
on   the   mountain — the   house    built    on   the    rock,   more 
numerous,  more  widespread,, more  intensely  united  than 
ever.   The  persecutions  of  a  Bismarck  and  Victor  Emman- 
uel have  confessedly  resulted  in  their  outrageous  loss  and 
her  glorious  gain.     The  cultivated  intellect  of  our  age 
has  paid  her  another  homage.     Great  Britain,  the  United 
States,  France,  Germanv,  are  the  countries  which  our  aee 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         97 

is  constantly  holding  up  as  the  models  of  intellectual  re- 
finement and  culture.  Now  just  in  these  countries  has 
the  Church  met  with  a  success  that  seems  marvellous. 
Who,  a  hundred  years  ago,  would  have  been  so  rash  as  to 
predict  that  instead  of  a  few  lowly  chapels  where  in 
fear  and  trembling  a  handful  of  priests  and  laity  were 
keeping  alive  the  faith  in  England,  Scotland,  and  Wales, 
we  would  now  have  hundreds  of  grand  churches  and  the 
full  hierarchy  of  bishops  !  Who  would  have  been  so  rash 
as  to  predict  the  wonderful  number  of  converts  in  Great 
Britain,  and  their  high  rank  and  brilliant  intellects.  Who, 
journeying  one  hundred  years  ago  through  New  England 
and  the  other  parts  of  our  present  Union,  could  have  pre- 
dicted that  in  less  than  a  century  the  Catholic  Church 
would  be  by  far  the  most  numerous  body  of  Christians  in 
the  Republic !  And  she  who  then  had  not  one  bishop 
within  the  limits  of  our  borders  would  in  so  short  a  space 
of  time  have  nearly  seventy  bishops«and  would  cover  the 
land  with  her  churches,  colleges,  and  other  institutions. 
And  America  has  rivalled  Great  Britain  in  the  number 
and  in  the  distinguished  qualities  of  the  converts  who 
have  acknowleded  her  truth.  Let  any  one  compare  the 
condition  of  the  Church  in  France  at  the  present  hour 
with  the  condition  one  century  ago,  and  he  will  ac- 
knowledge how  great  are  the  strides  which  she  has  made 
in  that  truly  wonderful  country.  Now  let  us  cast  a  glance 
at  Germany,  the  acknowledged  home  of  all  modern  free- 
thinking,  and  of  the  wildest  socialistic  ideas — never  before 
has  the  Church  put  forth  such  valor — never  before  has 
she  shown  such  an  illustrious  martyr-clergy,  and  a  people 
so  devoted  with  genuine  German  heartiness  to  the  glorious 
old  Church  !  Prince  von  Bismarck  and  Kaiser  William  in 
the  hour  of  the  grandest  triumph  recorded  in  history,  and 


98  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

standing  in  reality  at  the  head  of  Europe,  began  their 
attack  with  fearful  cunning  and  force  against  the  Church. 
Seven  long  years  has  the  attack  raged.1  Hundreds  of  the 
pastors  of  the  flock  have  been  imprisoned  and  banished. 
And  now  who  is  the  winner  and  who  is  the  loser? 
Steady  as  Alexander's  bristling  phalanx  stands  the  un- 
conquered  Church  ;  wider,  far  wider,  has  she  extended 
her  lines  ;  closer  than  Caesar's  legions,  in  battle  array, 
stand  her  compact  forces.  On  the  other  hand,  how  is  it 
with  the  German  Empire  ?  An  exhausted  treasury,  a  dis- 
contented people,  and  a  divided  empire,  a  lost  popularity, 
and,  above  all,  the  pandemonium  of  socialism  and  com- 
munism, looming  up  to  its  fright,  make  the  Boulevard 
1  Unter  den  Linden  '  unsafe  for  the  Emperor  William  and 
his  henchman  Bismarck. 

"  I  have  simply  hinted  here  at  the  fact.  But  the  pen 
of  the  future  historian  will  show  that  in  our  age  deistic 
and  infidel  writers  have  added  nothing  to  the  rule  of  law, 
peace,  and  happiness,  but  on  the  contrary  are  building 
up  the  lawlessness  of  socialism  and  communism  in  Europe 
and  America  ;  while  just  in  the  nineteenth  century  culti- 
vated intellect  has  rendered  the  Catholic  Church  the 
highest  homage." 

Such  is  the  whole  argument  on  the  side  of  the  Church  ; 
at  least  it  is  all  the  Bishop  has  ever  given  me,  it  seems  to 
include  all  that  could  be  urged  in  that  connection,  and  I 
know  of  no  other. 

I  give  my  reply^  again  changing  the  pronouns,  and 
dropping  the  epistolary  form. 

Before  discussing  the  answer  to  my  argument  deduced 
from  the  history  of  the  oecumenical  councils,  I  consider 

1  This  was  written  some  twelve  years  ago. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.         99 

the  remark  which  so  exercised  the  Bishop  that  he  refers 
to  it  more  than  once. 

After  having  shown  the  contradictory  actions  of  various 
of  these  councils  and  which  he  has  not  pretended  to  deny, 
I  said,  as  already  stated,  that  I  knew  he  would  say  that 
some  of  these  councils  were  good  and  some  bad,  and  that 
the  good  have  always  agreed.  He  replied  in  a  portion  of 
his  letter  which,  being  purely  personal,  I  have  omitted, 
that  he  "  has  never  said  and  never  will  say  any  such 
thing,"  and  wished  to  know  why  I  put  such  a  "  silly 
assertion  "  in  his  mouth,  and  then  wondered  why  he  should 
utter  so  "  foolish  "  a  defence. 

My  reasons  for  attributing  such  a  defence  to  the  Bishop 
were  these :  I  have  heard  others  use  that  defence  ;  I  have 
understood  that  there  was  a  list  in  the  Vatican  of  such 
councils  as  were  considered  binding;  that  a  number  of 
councils  considered  valid  by  the  Roman  Church  were  con- 
sidered invalid  by  the  Greek  Church,  and  vice  versa  ;  that 
therefore  the  Roman  Church  considered  some  of  the 
councils  good  and  some  bad — that  is,  some  valid  and  some 
invalid.  I  assumed  that  the  Bishop  would  hold  the  same 
views  as  did  his  Church :  the  more  especially  as  his  first 
paper  was  to  the  effect,  as  I  understood  it,  that  there  was 
no  disagreement  between  the  councils  ;  so  that  I  was  in  a 
measure  forced  to  conclude  that  in  his  opinion,  and  the 
opinion  of  the  Church,  the  valid,  or  good,  councils  all 
agreed.  If  the  Bishop  would  admit  that  the  councils 
recognized  as  valid  by  the  Church  of  Rome  have  disagreed 
and  differed,  the  one  from  the  other,  I  would  withdraw 
that  portion  of  my  remarks  which  would  make  him  say 
that  the  good  councils  have  always  agreed.  Otherwise  it 
must  stand.  It  will  be  observed  that  I  did  not  pretend  to 
say  why  the  Bishop  would  claim  that  some  were  good  and 


IOO  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

some  bad  ;  I  only  declared  my  belief  that  he  would  assert 
such  to  be  the  case.  It  was  a  little  prophecy,  the  reasons 
for  making  which  I  have  just  given.  Let  us  see  how  it 
has  been  fulfilled. 

Referring  to  the  argument  which  has  just  been  given  we 
find  that  the  Bishop,  after  so  fully  and  clearly  explaining 
the  organization  of  the  Catholic  Church,  says  :  "  Had  you 
remembered  this  you  [I]  would  not  have  said  '  I  suppose 
the  600  bishops  at  Rimini  as  apt  .  .  .  to  be  right 
as  150  bishops  at  Constantinople/  For  the  enactments 
of  the  600  bishops  at  Rimini  were  all  rejected  by  the  head 
of  Christ's  kingdom  on  earth — the  successor  of  St.  Peter 
— the  Bishop  of  Rome." 

Here  is  one  oecumenical  council  pronounced  bad  by 
him. 

After  further  explanation  of  the  Church's  organization, 
the  Bishop  says  :  "  Hence  when  you  ask  :  '  how  shall  we  tell 
the  true  from  the  false  councils,'  you  need  not  have  added 
the  nonsense,  '  I  know  that  you  will  say  some  of  these 
councils  were  good  and  some  were  bad,  and  the  good  have 
always  agreed.'  I  will  say  no  such  foolishness.  It  was  per- 
fectly gratuitous  in  you  [me]  to  place  such  assertions  in  my 
mouth.  For  like  every  true  Catholic  I  will  say  that  only 
those  councils  are  good  whose  decrees  have  met  the 
sanction  of  the  vicar  of  Christ,  the  visible  head  of  the 
Church.  Hence  Rimini,  and  many  others  which  you  copy 
from  Voltaire,  have  always  been  rejected  by  Catholics 
because  they  have  been  rejected  by  the  head  of  the 
Church." 

If  this  is  not  saying  that  some  of  these  councils  (cited 
by  me)  are  good  and  some  bad,  then  I  do  not  understand 
English :  and  these  extracts  are  full,  not  garbled.  As  to 
the  reasons  why  I  thought  he  would  set  up  such  defence, 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       IOI 

and  pronounce  some  of  the  councils  valid  and  others 
invalid,  I  had  said  nothing.  He  denied  more  than  once 
that  he  ever  had  said  or  ever  would  say  such  "  foolish- 
ness "  (the  word  is  his  own)  and  then  said  it,  giving  his 
reasons.  And  unless  he  would  say  that  I  have  miscon- 
strued his  views,  and  that  he  believes  that  the  councils 
which  he  does  consider  good  have  disagreed  among 
themselves,  which  of  course  is  not  to  be  expected,  I  must 
insist  that  my  little  prophecy  has  been  more  exactly 
and  literally  fulfilled,  as  I  meant  it,  and  as  I  understand 
my  native  tongue,  than  any  he  can  point  to  in  Holy 
Writ  ;  and  his  condemnation  of  the  predicted  explanation 
as  "  foolish  "  is  his  condemnation  of  his  actual  defence. 

And  I  enter  so  fully  into  this  seemingly  trivial  matter 
because  it  illustrates  the  theological  system  of  argument 
— bold  and  re-iterated  denial  in  the  face  of  even  the  most 
apparent  facts. 

The  Bishop  has  been  especially  severe  on  Voltaire.  He 
has  hit  so  often,  so  hard,  and  in  such  vulnerable  points, 
that  I  cannot  blame  any  Churchman,  whether  Catholic  or 
Protestant,  for  not  loving  him.  But  they  should  remem- 
ber that  if  we  wish  to  know  the  truth  about  ourselves  we 
should  consult  our  enemies.  But  I  doubt  if  the  Church 
wishes  to  hear  the  truth  about  herself:  certainly  she  did 
not  like  it  formerly.  As  the  Bishop  suggests,  I  would  not 
care  to  go  to  B.  F.  Butler  and  Thaddeus  Stevens  as  my 
sole  authorities  for  facts  as  to  the  late  Confederacy ;  but 
if  they  stated  publicly  as  fact  any  disagreeable  thing  about 
our  people,  I  would  not  content  myself  with  saying  that 
the  statements  were  incorrect,  nor  in  branding  them  as 
"  liars,"  as  the  Bishop  does  Voltaire,  but  I  would  disprove 
the  facts  first,  if  I  could,  and  then  I  might  use  such  terms 
as  the  circumstances  and  my  taste  warranted.     I  have  no 


102  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

doubt  but  that  both  of  the  persons  alluded  to  have  made 
inaccurate  statements  about  the  Confederacy,  perhaps 
unintentionally,  possibly  designedly.  But  the  statements 
would  be  true  or  false  as  the  facts  were,  and  not  because 
of  the  men  who  made  them.  If  they  have  made  any 
statements  which  have  been  published  and  brought  to  the 
attention  of  those  affected  by  them,  and  they  have  not 
been  disproved,  any  one  has  the  right  to  treat  such  state- 
ments as  true.  I  do  not  believe  that  Voltaire  was  either 
untrustworthy  or  bad.  There  are  two  accounts  of  him, 
one  making  him  both  great  and  good,  and  the  other,  the 
Church's,  making  him  all  that  is  vile.  But  the  Church 
hated  him,  and  resolved  to  destroy  him  as  far  as  she 
could,  body,  soul,  and  reputation  ;  and  when  the  Church 
has  an  object  to  attain  she  is  not  wont  to  be  particular  as 
to  either  her  epithets  or  her  statements. 

The  Bishop  says,  as  a  reproach,  that  Voltaire's  constant 
expression  was  "  fcrasez  Vinfame"  meaning  the  Church. 
Not  polite,  certainly ;  too  vigorous  to  be  strictly  parlia- 
mentary ;  but  when  we  take  into  consideration  that  he 
knew  all  about  her  in  her  then  condition,  the  character 
of  her  priesthood  at  that  time,  her  persecution  and  abuse 
of  him,  and  that  he  was  raised  a  Christian  and  therefore 
probably  a  good  hater,  can  we  blame  him  ?  Another 
•'  infidel,"  now  living,  R.  G.  Ingersoll,  in  his  oration  on 
Paine,  says : 

"  But  the  Church  is  as  unforgiving  as  ever,  and  still  wonders  why  any 
infidel  should  be  wicked  enough  to  endeavor  to  destroy  her  power. 

"  I  will  tell  the  Church  why. 

"You  have  imprisoned  the  human  mind  ;  you  have  been  the  enemy  of 
liberty  ;  you  have  burned  us  at  the  stake — wasted  us  with  slow  fires — torn 
our  flesh  with  iron  ;  you  have  covered  us  with  chains — treated  us  as  outcasts  ; 
you  have  filled  the  world  with  fear  ;  you  have  taken  our  wives  and  children 
from  our  arms  ;  you  have  confiscated  our  property  ;  you  have  denied  us  the 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       103 

right  to  testify  in  courts  of  justice  ;  you  have  branded  us  with  infamy  ;  you 
have  torn  out  our  tongues  ;  you  have  refused  us  burial.  In  the  name  of  your 
religion  you  have  robbed  us  of  every  right ;  and  after  having  inflicted  upon 
us  every  evil  that  can  be  inflicted  in  this  world,  you  have  fallen  upon  your 
knees,  and,  with  clasped  hands,  implored  your  God  to  torment  us  for  ever. 

"Can  you  wonder  that  we  hate  your  doctrines — that  we  despise  your 
creeds — that  we  feel  proud  to  know  that  we  are  beyond  your  power — that 
we  are  free  in  spite  of  you — that  we  can  express  our  honest  thought,  and 
that  the  whole  world  is  grandly  rising  into  the  blessed  light? 

"  Can  you  wonder  that  we  point  with  pride  to  the  fact  that  Infidelity  has 
ever  been  found  battling  for  the  rights  of  man,  for  the  liberty  of  conscience, 
and  for  the  happiness  of  all  ?  Can  you  wonder  that  we  are  proud  to  know 
that  we  have  always  been  disciples  of  Reason,  and  soldiers  of  Freedom  ;  that 
we  have  denounced  tyranny  and  superstition,  and  kept  our  hands  unstained 
with  human  blood  ?  " 

So  speaks  Ingersoll ;  to  the  same  effect  wrote  Voltaire ; 
and,  if  history  be  true,  both  were  justified  in  their  state- 
ments; and  the  only  blame  I  can  attach  to  Voltaire  for 
his  energetic  war-cry  is  its  lack  of  courtesy. 

But  Voltaire  was  a  brave  man,  as  is  shown  by  his  out- 
spoken, fearless  writings  at  a  time  very  different  from  our 
own,  and  such  are  not  usually  liars.  He  may  have  been 
occasionally  inaccurate,  may  have,  under  excitement, 
exaggerated,  may  have  been  misled ;  but  I  do  not  believe 
he  ever  intentionally  misrepresented  ;  I  think  he  was  will- 
ing to  leave  the  monopoly  of  that  weapon  to  the  Church, 
which  could  plead  high  authority  for  the  practice,  as  we 
shall  see  when  we  compare  the  ethics  of  the  Pagans,  the 
Jews,  and  the  Church — Prop.  IV.  Certainly  the  Bishop 
has  not  established  any  misrepresentation  in  what  I  have 
cited  on  his  authority. 

The  Bishop  cites  the  American  Encyclopedia  as 
declaring  Voltaire  "  utterly  untrustworthy  as  an  historian." 
If  he  were,  that  would  only  show  that  we  should  not  rely 
on   any  facts  related   by  him    alone;  his  stating  a  fact 


104  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

which  was  well  established  by  other  writers  would  hardly 
be  claimed  as  destroying  it ;  and,  as  we  shall  presently 
see,  the  facts  which  I  have  cited  from  him,  and  which  are 
denied  by  the  Bishop,  are  all  of  that  character.  But  the 
Bishop  seems  to  rather  overstate  what  the  American 
Encyclopedia  says.  What  I  find  there  is  this :  "  his 
histories  are  sprightly,  entertaining,  but  not  authentic." 
It  does  not  say  in  what ;  it  probably  means  in  his  anec- 
dotes and  incidents  of  a  personal  nature ;  it  is  altogether 
unlikely  that  he  would  have  published  any  important 
facts  as  history  without  their  being  authentic,  for  they 
could  so  easily  be  disproved,  and  I  know  of  hardly  any 
historian  writing  of  affairs  which  are  at  all  near  the  time 
of  the  writer  who  is  not  claimed  by  those  whose  interests 
or  inclinations  run  counter  to  his  statements  to  be  unre- 
liable. Nor  do  I  think  he  could  be  the  vile  wretch 
depicted  by  the  Church  whose  last  words  were  (on  the 
authority  of  the  same  article,  quoted  by  the  Bishop),  "  I 
die  worshipping  God,  loving  my  friends,  not  hating  my 
enemies,  but  detesting  superstition  "  ; — evidently  not  yet 
reconciled  with  the  Church. 

The  Bishop  in  very  general  terms  calls  Voltaire  a  "  liar," 
but  directly  denies  only  three  of  his  many  statements 
cited  by  me.  The  denial  is  in  these  words  :  "  When 
again,  copying  from  the  worthless  statements  of  Voltaire, 
you  say  dogmas  of  transubstantiation  and  confession 
were  first  announced  at  the  council  of  Lateran  in  12 15, 
you  must  thank  such  a  guide  for  leading  you  into  a  most 
palpable  untruth.  Into  a  falsehood  equally  absurd  has 
Voltaire  led  you  when  you  assert  '  in  842  another  grand 
council  at  Constantinople  .  .  .  the  adoration  of 
images  was  solemnly  established.'  But  I  have  not  the 
time   to   follow  all    the    crude   ideas  and   infinitely  false 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       105 

assertions  contained  in  Voltaire's  account  and  quoted 
by  you." 

Here  again,  in  general  terms,  the  whole  account  is 
declared  to  contain  many  untruths,  but  as  only  three 
instances  are  specifically  pointed  out  by  the  Bishop  it  is 
fair  to  assume  that  they  (transubstantiation,  confession, 
adoration  of  images)  are  the  most  glaring  falsehoods. 

I  had  warned  him  that  the  facts  stated  by  Voltaire  were 
also  stated  by  other  authors,  and  that  I  used  Voltaire  for 
convenience  only ;  but  the  indignation  aroused  by  the 
hated  name  seems  to  have  caused  the  Bishop  to  over- 
look that  fact. 

I  now  consult,  on  these  three  points,  other,  and  to  the 
Church  perhaps  less  objectionable  authorities:  and  first  I 
quote  from  the  American  Encyclopedia,  whose  article  on 
Voltaire  the  Bishop  called  "  very  moderate  and  impar- 
tial," as  to  transubstantiation,  title  "  Lord's  Supper." 

"  The  first  great  eucharistic  controversy  was  called  forth  by  a  book  of 
Paschasius  Radbertus  in  831  (De  Corpore  et  Sanguine  Domini)  in  which  he 
advanced  the  doctrine  that  the  substance  of  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine 
in  the  eucharist  was  changed  into  the  very  body  of  Christ  which  was  born 
of  the  Virgin.  This  was  declared  to  be  an  act  of  creation  by  almighty  power, 
though  invisible  to  any  but  an  eye  of  faith.  He  was  especially  opposed  by 
Ratramnus,  a  monk  of  Corbie,  who  adhered  to  the  view  that  in  the  Lord's 
supper  there  is  a  communion  of  the  earthly  with  the  heavenly.  The  con- 
troversy was  brought  before  the  highest  authorities,  when  Berangarius,  Arch- 
deacon of  Angers,  maintained  that  there  was  a  change  in  the  sacramental 
elements  only  in  a  figurative  sense." 

The  article  then  shows  how  this  controversy  lasted  until 
it  was  finally  decided  when  "  the  4th  council  of  Lateran, 
in  121 5,  declared  transubstantiation  an  article  of  faith." 
Thus  this  authority  confirms  the  statement  made  by 
Voltaire. 


106  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

Next,  as  to  confession,  I  quote  the  Encyclopedia  Bri- 
tannica, gth  edition,  an  universally  recognized  authority, 
title  "  Confession." 

"  Passages  from  the  fathers,  such  as  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Basil,  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  and  others,  recommending  the  practice  (confession)  have  to  be  con- 
fronted with  the  small  prominence  given  to  it  in  the  works  of  St.  Augustine, 
and  the  strong  declarations  of  St.  Chrysostom  on  the  sufficiency  of  confession 
to  God  ;  but  the  practice  gradually  became  more  common,  especially  in  the 
west,  and  more  a  matter  of  rule  and  precept,  until  at  length,  in  the  fourth 
Lateran  Council,  held  under  Pope  Innocent  III.  in  1215,  it  was  enjoined 
upon  all  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome  once  a  year,  by  the  famous  21st 
canon,  beginning  with  the  words,  '  omnis  utriusque  sexus  Jidelis.'1  " 

Which  also  confirms  Voltaire. 

And  in  support  of  my  position  as  to  the  councils,  gen- 
erally, I  quote  from  the  same  book,  title  "  Council :  " 
"  These  prevailing  practices  were  approved  or  reprehended, 
and  the  dim  persuasions  of  the  few  or  the  many  were 
sharpened  into  dogmatic  statement  binding  on  all." 

Third,  about  the  establishment  of  the  adoration  of 
images  by  the  council  of  Constantinople  in  842.  The 
articles  bearing  on  the  subject  are  too.  long  for  quotation 
here.  But  I  refer  to  CJiambers's  Encyclopedia,  titles  "  Icon- 
oclasts," and  "  Image  Worship,"  and  the  Dictionary  of 
Sects,  Heresies,  etc.,  by  J.   H.  Blunt. 

The  undoubted  facts  seem  to  be  simply  these.  For  a 
long  time  no  pictures  or  images  were  allowed  in  the 
churches,  but  by  degrees  they  were  introduced.  Then 
some  objected  to  the  practice,  and  such,  the  "  Iconoclasts," 
as  they  were  called,  gained  such  strength  and  influence 
that  those  who  favored  the  practice  concentrated  their 
strength  and  at  the  second  council  of  Nice,  convoked  by 
Irene  in  the  name  of  her  son  Constantine,  the  adoration 
of  images  was  decreed.     This  was  in  787.     In  794  Charle- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       107 

magne  convoked  the  council  of  Frankfort,  as  cited  by 
me,  and  that  council  condemned  the  action  of  the  second 
council  of  Nice  so  far  as  it  related  to  images.  But  the 
Pope  explained  that  there  was  a  mistake  in  translating 
the  proceedings  of  the  council  of  Nice,  which  were  in 
Greek,  into  Latin,  and  that  the  adoration  to  be  given  to 
images  was  douleia,  and  not  latreia — that  is  to  say,  was  of  a 
different  sort  from  that  given  to  God,  and  therefore  was 
not  idolatry.  This  was,  of  course,  eminently  satisfactory, 
and  at  the  council  of  842  the  adoration  {douleia)  of  images 
was  firmly  established  ;  and  of  course  no  Roman  Catholic 
ever  gives  to  the  images  the  same  sort  of  adoration  that 
he  gives  to  God,  for,  since  the  explanation  of  the  Pope, 
even  the  most  superstitious  and  ignorant  now  fully  com- 
prehend the  precise  difference  between  douleia  and  latreia, 
though  the  learned  translator  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
council  seemingly  did  not  ;  and  their  image-worship  in  no 
manner  partakes  of  the  nature  of  idolatry — if  we  would 
believe  the  Church. 

Thus  the  only  three  statements  which  the  Bishop 
distinctly  brands  as  false  are  fully  corroborated  and 
sustained  by  the  authorities  now  cited  ;  and  if  Voltaire  is 
untrustworthy  in  his  statements  of  fact — as  to  these  in- 
stances— so  are  many  others  who  have  not  hitherto  had 
that  reputation  ;  and  the  evidence  seems  strong  enough 
to  call  for  a  better  refutation  than  a  mere  denial,  a  mere 
plea  of  not  guilty,  unsustained  by  proof  ;  but  I  strongly 
suspect  that  the  Church  will  not  admit  the  truth  of  any 
history,  secular  or  ecclesiastical,  which  does  not  bear  her 
own  imprimatur,  unless  the  narrated  facts  coincide  with 
her  views. 

The  explanations  of  the  "  consubstantialis  "  and  Papal 
infallibility  dogmas,  given  by  the  Bishop  with  so  much  de- 


108  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

tail  and  clearness,  are  not  only  interesting,  but  are,  in  this 
controversy,  exceedingly  valuable ;  because,  on  his  own 
showing,  a  majority  vote  explained,  interpreted,  broad- 
ened, enlarged,  contrary  to  the  wishes,  views,  and  belief  of 
the  minority  ;  and  the  majority  sometimes  voting  under 
instructions  from  the  Pope,  were  therefore  not  neces- 
sarily nor  probably  voting  always  in  accordance  with  their 
own  opinions.1 

Some  tenet  of  the  Church,  some  text  of  Scripture,  had 
come  to  have  different  interpretations  put  upon  it.  The 
bishops  met ;  if  they  were  allowed  to  discuss  the  matter 
at  all  some  said  the  tenet  or  text  meant  one  thing, 
some  said  it  meant  another,  the  majority  declared  its  in- 
terpretation to  be  the  true  one,  the  one  that  always  was 
right,  and,  to  prevent  future  misunderstandings,  the  tenet 
or  text  was  enlarged,  broadened,  changed,  re-explained,  or 
re-defined,  to  suit  the  views  of  the  majority ;  and  if  the 
majority  had  happened  to  think  the  other  way,  the  broad- 
ening would  have  been  in  the  other  direction.  And  then 
to  clinch  the  matter,  and  settle  the  question  beyond  all 
cavil,  the  doctrine  with  its  new  interpretation,  certainly 
with  its  new  wording,  is  made  a  dogma  ;  and  when  the 
majority  declared  anything  to  be  a  dogma  which  was  not 
a  dogma  before,  but  only  a  practice  or  belief,  it  put  a  new 
obstacle  in  the  road  to  heaven  and  forced  the  minority  to 
clamber  over  it ;  which  is  just  what  I  was  contending  for, 
and  the  Church's  own  argument  establishes  my  theory. 

But  an  argument  based  on  history  alone  is  compara- 
tively worthless,  for  to  destroy  the  argument  it  is  only 
necessary  to  deny  the  history ;  and   when   two  histories 

1  See  ante,  p.  83,  where  the  Bishop  says:  "For  that  reason  the  succes- 
sors of  St.  Peter  have  often,  in  assembling  bishops,  written  to  them  directing 
and  ordering  them  the  manner  in  which  they  should  treat  subjects  which  were 
to  be  broached  in  the  councils." 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 09 

have  been  written  from  two  different  standpoints  recount- 
ing events  happening  many  centuries  ago,  it  is  difficult 
sometimes  to  establish  which  is  correct,  especially  to  the 
satisfaction  of  those  who  hold  opposite  views.  So  after 
giving  an  historical  sketch  of  the  councils  I  made  an 
argument  based  on  the  necessities  of  the  case.  The  only 
reply  to  this  argument  is  an  indirect-  one  deducible  from 
the  assertion  that  the  Church  was  organized  and  consti- 
tuted by  Jesus — that  is  to  say,  by  God.  This  point  is  fully 
argued,  and,  I  trust,  fully  met,  in  Prop.  IV.,  in  discussing 
the  divinity  of  Jesus.  So  I  merely  here  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  as  I  use  the  history  of  the  councils  as  one  of 
the  arguments  against  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  any  argument 
based  solely  on  the  assumption  of  that  divinity  is  entirely 
without  force  ;  for  it  assumes,  as  a  starting-point,  the  very 
point  at  issue  :  the  same  old  argument  in  a  circle — the 
Church  is  infallible  because  Jesus,  who  is  God,  organized, 
and  promised  to  be  with  it  all  days  ;  and  we  know  that 
Jesus  is  God,  because  an  infallible  Church  tells  us  so. 

As  to  the  Bishop's  remark  that  I  had  been  unable  to 
accept  his  challenge  to  prove  the  proposition  contained 
in  my  first  paper,  and  had  "  backed  down  "  from  that 
position  and  offered  another  proposition,  I  have  only  to 
say  that  my  learned  friend  is  mistaken.  The  proposition 
which  I  changed  was  his  way  of  putting  it,  and  I  simply 
preferred  to  formulate  my  own  propositions  ;  and  I  put  it 
in  the  form  I  did  to  make  it  conform  nearer  to  my  origi- 
nal statement  and  to  more  fully  meet  what  I  anticipated 
(correctly,  as  it  turned  out)  would  be  his  explanation. 
But  the  facts  cited  by  me  not  only  support  the  proposi- 
tion as  modified  by  me,  they  sustain  the  proposition  as 
formulated  by  him  in  his  challenge. 

The  argument  by  which  the  Bishop  attempts  to  show 


IIO  AN  INQ  UIR  Y  IN  TO 

that  "  rejecting  all  authority,"  and  "  doing  one's  own 
thinking"  is  "unfounded  and  irrational,"  is  so  obviously 
erroneous  that  I  give  it  only  a  passing  notice.  Either  he 
did  not  understand  my  position,  or  he  cannot  rid  himself 
of  the  clerical  habit  of  using  utterly  illogical  arguments. 
Of  course,  I  "  believe  many  things  on  the  authority  of 
others  "  in  every-day  life, — when  I  know  the  persons,  and 
the  statements  are  not  unreasonable  ;  but  I  also  disbelieve 
much  of  what  I  hear.  And  I  also  allow  "  others  to  do  the 
thinking  for  "  me  to  a  certain  extent ;  that  is,  if  their 
thoughts  as  expressed  by  them,  their  arguments,  convince 
my  mind,  I  adopt  them.  I  let  any  one  who  will  think  for 
me  and  give  me  the  benefit  of  his  thoughts  ;  but  I  decide 
for  myself. 

It  is  a  little  instructive  to  hear  the  Bishop  just  after 
speaking  so  regretfully  of  the  past  and  gone  *'  ages  of 
faith,"  as  compared  with  the  present  condition  of  the 
world,  refer  to  the  great  advances  which  Roman  Catholi- 
cism is  making  at  the  present  day.  In  those  "  ages  of 
faith,"  as  he  calls  it,  "  dark  ages  "  as  others  put  it,  Europe 
was  all  Roman  Catholic  ;  but  advancing  thought  so  tri- 
umphantly combated  the  Church,  driving  her  from  strong- 
hold after  stronghold,  that  now  it  is  a  matter  of  boast 
that  she  is  seemingly  regaining  a  little  of  her  lost  power. 
But  this  need  not  comfort  her.  She  has  been  so  improved 
by  her  conflict  and  contact  with  the  spirit  of  truth  that 
she  is  no  longer  a  semblance  of  her  former  arrogant  self, 
and  has  become  politic  and  tolerant,  using  sophistry  where 
she  once  used  force,  fawning  where  she  was  wont  to  com- 
mand. Besides,  old  beliefs,  under  the  pressure  of  free 
thought,  are  becoming  unsettled,  and,  as  a  consequence, 
men  shift  from  one  faith  to  another.  But  the  end  is  com- 
ing, very  slowly,  perhaps,  but  very  surely.     The  Church 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       Ill 

must  live  and  flourish  for  a  long  time  yet :  so  long  as 
ignorance  and  superstition  exist  in  this  world,  so  long  will 
the  Church  hold  her  own.  And  by  ignorance  I  mean 
theological  ignorance.  A  man  may  be  deservedly  emi- 
nent in  any  of  the  learned  professions  of  law,  medicine, 
and  divinity,  and  yet  profoundly  ignorant  of  anything 
theological  beyond  the  Christian  creed.  Very  few  scien- 
tists now  hold  to  the  creeds  of  the  Church,  and  even  on 
those  who  are  not  scientists  her  grasp  is  weakening.  I 
know  personally  numbers  of  people  who  are  nominal 
Christians,  Catholic  or  Protestant,  and  who  believe  very 
little  more  of  their  Church's  creed  than  I  do.  They  con- 
form from  habit,  from  pride,  for  respectability,  for  fear  of 
public  opinion  ;  but  they  have  admitted,  in  strict  confi- 
dence, that  in  their  souls  they  reject  much  that  is  taught 
by  the  Church :  and  here  is  another  evidence  of  the 
decadence  of  the  Roman  Church.  She  seeks  new 
converts,  and  so  long  as  she  is  not  understood  she 
will  get  them  ;  but  while  she  is  seeking  to  extend  her 
own  peculiar  faith  among  those  of  other  denominations, 
many  born  and  bred  in  the  fold  believe  but  from  the 
teeth  outwards. 

The  Bishop's  question  :  "  All  this  free-thinking  that  has 
so  deeply  your  [my]  sympathy,  what  is  it  leading  to  ;  is 
it  to  greater  peace,  happiness,  law,  order,  and  true 
enlightenment  ? "  I  answer,  most  emphatically,  yes  ; 
and  refer  to  my  remarks  in  discussing  the  influence  of 
the  Church  on  civilization,  Proposition  I.  (a).  The 
Bishop  says:  "  Let  the  socialism  and  communism,  un- 
known in  the  ages  of  faith,  answer." 

Just  after  the  third  Napoleon's  coup  d'etat,  Punch  pub- 
lished a  cartoon  representing  a  woman,  labelled  "  France," 
bound  and  chained,  hand  and  foot,  lying  at  the  feet  of  a 


112  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

soldier  who  held  a  bayonet  to  her  breast ;  underneath  was 
the  legend,   "  France  is  tranquil."     So  in   the  "  ages  of 
faith  "  was  Europe  tranquil — but  it  was  the  tranquillity 
of  the  dove  in  the  talons  of  the  hawk,  of  the  lamb  in  the 
clutches  of  the  lion — it  was  the  tranquillity  of  death  ;  and 
if  it  had  not  been  for  free  thought  she  would  never  have 
known  an  awakening.      The  socialism,  communism,  nihil- 
ism, and  other  revolutionary  "  isms  "  of  the  day  are  but 
the  reactions  of  the  human  mind  so  long  held  down  by 
the  unyielding,  unpitying,  iron  despotism  of  superstition, 
ignorance,  intolerance,   and   tyranny.     Light  is  dawning 
on  the  benighted  mind,  and  it  is  blinded  by  the  unaccus- 
tomed glare ;  hope  has  come  to  the  despairing  heart,  and 
it  strives  to  realize  its  flattering  tale ;  what  wonder  that 
with  the  example   of  their  despots,  State   and   Church, 
before  them,  men,  bewildered  by  such  novel  mental  con- 
ditions, and  just  beginning  to  realize  their  strength  and 
to  know  their  rights,  should  use  force  to  repel  aggression, 
organized  secrecy  to  combat  organized  power,  violence  to 
resist  tyranny,  assassination  to  terrorize  their  foes.    True, 
this  is  all  wrong  and    deeply  to  be  deplored,    but   the 
people  are  not  alone   to  blame.     Improperly  educated, 
ignorant — except  where  by  their  own  exertions  they  have 
picked  up  just   enough  knowledge  to   be  dangerous  to, 
and  mislead,  them  ;    instead  of  being  permitted   to  urge 
their  vagaries  in  the  open  air  where  they  could  be  met 
and  combated  and  their  fallacies  refuted,  they  have  been 
forced   to  hold   their  peace  in  public,  and   have  had  to 
meet  and   discuss  in  darkness  and  secrecy.     No  wonder 
that  pernicious   ideas,  like  noxious  weeds,  should   grow 
apace  under  such  conditions.    The  Church  has  taught  the 
gospel  of  might,  her  pupils  are  putting  her  precepts  into 
practice.     She  has  used  force  to  attain  her  ends,  they  are 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DO GMA  TIC  CHRIS TIA NITY.       1 1 3 

■*- 

but  following  her  example.     She  has  sown  the  wind,  the 
whirlwind  is  being  harvested. 

But  time  will  correct  all  this.  Truth,  now  that  the 
Church  has  lost  her  temporal  power,  is  free  to  combat 
error,  and  truth  will  ultimately  prevail ;  but  so  long  as 
authority,  of  itself  alone,  without  the  consent  of  the 
governed,  whether  it  be  authority  of  State  or  authority 
of  Church,  shall  seek  to  oppress  mankind,  just  so  long 
will  men  rebel,  and  in  rebelling  advance  the  cause  of 
liberty  and  truth. 


THE  ARGUMENT. 

PROPOSITION    IV. 

IV.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  not  God,  nor  the  son,  in  the 
sense  of  offspring,  of  God  ;  he  never  claimed  to  be 
either,  nor  did  others  claim  it  for  him  until  long 
after  his  death  ;  and  during  his  life  he  never  sought 
or  received  divine  honors. 

He  taught  no  new  ethics;  and  the  ethics  of  many 
of  the  "  Pagans  "  were  superior  to  those  of  the  Jews, 
and  equal  to  those  of  the  Church. 

I  am  aware  that  there  are  many,  very  many  passages 
in  the  Bible  which  are  cited  to  prove  the  opposite  of  this 
proposition  ;  and  that  many  better  and  wiser  men  than  I 
believe  firmly  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  this  is 
to  be  expected.  All  of  the  New  Testament  was  written 
long  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  such  passages  were 
evidently  inserted  in  the  interest  of  the  new  sect  that  was 
struggling  to  attract  the  attention  and  win  the  sympathy 
of  mankind ;  and  are  the  embodiment  of  such  of  the  cur- 
rent traditions  and  superstitions  as  concurred  with  the 
opinions,  or  met  the  views,  of  the  compiler  or  writer.  And 
such  persons  as  I  have  spoken  of  believe  as  they  do  partly 
from  habit,  partly  from  an  indisposition  to  interpret, 
study,  and  reason  for  themselves  ;  partly  because  they 
have  accustomed  themselves  to  allow  others  to  think  for 
them  on  this  subject,  but  principally  because  they  start 

114 


DOGMATIC    CHRISTIANITY.  I  I  5 

out  in  life  with  the  idea,  drawn  in  with  their  mother's 
milk,  that  the  Bible  is  a  sacred  book  emanating  from  God 
Himself,  and  not  to  be  examined  or  scrutinized  except  with 
the  determination  to  believe  anything  and  everything,  no 
matter  how  contradictory  or  unreasonable  it  may  be. 

I  will  be  as  brief  in  my  discussion  of  this  subject  as  its 
importance,  and  the  necessity  of  stating  my  arguments 
clearly,  will  permit. 

If  I  should  undertake  to  examine  the  five  Gathas  of 
Zoroaster1  (or  any  other  of  the  world's  many  sacred 
books)  to  determine  if  they  are,  as  many  millions  believe, 
of  Divine  origin  or  authority,  it  will  hardly  be  denied  by 
any  one  that  it  would  be  my  duty,  before  accepting  them 
as  such,  and  becoming  a  Parsee,  to  examine  carefully  and 
critically  the  internal  evidence  of  the  book  itself,  as  well 
as  its  surrounding  history,  to  compare  its  majestic  truths 
with  its  obvious  myths,  and  to  weigh  the  whole  well  and 
thoroughly  by  the  aid  of  all  the  powers  of  mind  with 
which  I  am  endowed  ;  that  if  I  must  use  my  reason  and 
think  deeply  before  undertaking  an  ordinary  business 
scheme  which  might  affect  my  whole  present  life,  so  much 
the  more  should  I  think,  and  study,  and  hesitate  before  I 
took  a  step  which  would  affect  my  future  life  through  all 
eternity. 

I  see  no  reason  why  I  should  not  pursue  the  same 
course  with  reference  to  the  Christian  Bible.  The  Gathas 
are  as  sacred  to  the  Parsee  as  the  Bible  to  the  Christian, 
and  for  the  same  reason — and  no  other  :  they  have  been 
taught  as  children  to  so  regard  them.     Therefore  I  inves- 

1  These  Gathas  are  a  portion  of  the  Zend-avesta,  the  Parsee  scriptures, 
and  are  spoken  of  as  "  of  Zoroaster  "  in  the  text,  not  to  indicate  that  they 
were  composed  by  him  (though  Dr.  Haug  thinks  portions  were),  but  because 
they  are  the  most  important  portions  of  the  scriptures  of  the  faith  of  which 
he  may  be  considered,  if  not  the  founder,  the  greatest  teacher  and  prophet. 


1 1 6  AN  INQ  UIR  Y  INTO 

tigate  the  sacred  book  of  my  own  race  as  I  do  the  sacred 
books  of  other  races,  many  of  them  older,  and  teaching 
very  similar  ethics. 

Looking;,  then,  at  the  Bible  as  a  book  to  be  studied  as 
any  other  book,  I  am  struck  with  the  very  flagrant  contra- 
dictions put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  by  those  who  wrote 
of  him  after  his  death.  He,  so  far  as  it  appears,  taught 
orally  entirely,  writing  nothing,  certainly  nothing  perma- 
nent ;  so  that  we  are  compelled  to  rely  on  the  reports 
of  others,  and  where  these  reports  are  contradictory,  as 
both  cannot  be  true,  we  must  endeavor  to  determine 
which  is  entitled  to  our  credence.  I  cannot  believe  that 
Jesus  would  say  such  very  contradictory  things,  for  in- 
stance, as  "  I  and  my  father  are  one,"  and  "  My  father 
is  greater  than  I  "  ;  or  to  his  disciples  "  Go  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature,"  while  saying  of  himself "  I 
am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel."  Hence  we  must  examine  the  evidence  under  the 
same  rules  and  tests  that  we  employ  in  ordinary  legal  or 
critical  investigations. 

There  are  recognized  in  law  two  classes  of  statements, 
representations  and  admissions.  Statements  made  in  one's 
own  favor,  for  the  purpose  of  advancing  one's  interests, 
are  called  representations,  and  are  of  themselves  alone 
entitled  to  very  little  weight ;  statements  against  one's 
interests  are  called  admissions,  and,  while  they  should  be 
closely  scanned  and  cautiously  received,  are,  if  clearly 
established,  of  overwhelming  weight.  This  is  not  an 
arbitrary  rule,  but  is  the  result  of  long  experience,  and  is 
founded  upon  an  accurate  knowledge  of  human  nature. 
While  one  may  be  tempted  to  represent  himself  in  a  more 
favorable  light  than  he  is  justly  entitled  to,  he  is  not  at  all 
apt  seriously  and  deliberately  to  admit  that  he  is  not  what 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       117 

he  claims  to  be,  unless  the  admission  be  true.  Such  is 
universal  experience,  such  is  universal  law.  The  seeming 
exceptions  are  only  seeming ;  as  where  one  confesses  to  a 
crime  of  which  he  is  innocent,  to  save  the  life,  liberty,  or 
reputation  of  another  whom  he  loves  more  than  himself. 
In  such  case  the  statements,  while  apparently  admissions 
as  against  the  seeming  interest  of  the  one  making  them, 
really  are  not  such,  but  are  representations  made  to 
further  his  actual  intentions. 

Hence,  when  the  question  is  as  to  who  and  what  Jesus 
was,  and  it  is  claimed  that  he  was  God,  his  admissions 
that  he  was  not,  are  entitled  to  more  weight  than  his 
representations  that  he  was,  even  if  he  ever  made  any  such 
representations,  which  I  do  not  believe.  And  I  do  not 
believe  it,  apart  from  any  question  as  to  the  authorship, 
date,  and  validity  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
because  I  think  Jesus  was  too  pure,  too  honest,  too  ear- 
nest, in  his  efforts  to  teach  his  fellows  the  truth  that  was  in 
him  to  play  fast  and  loose,  to  be  double-tongued,  or  to  try 
to  perplex  or  deceive.  Therefore,  while  his  admirers  might 
falsely  attribute  to  him  many  things  and  sayings  tending 
to  elevate  him  higher  than  he  really  was,  or  wished  to  be, 
they  would  never  invent  and  put  into  his  mouth  words 
which  plainly  mean  the  reverse  of  what  they  claim  for 
him.  Hence,  when  they  say  that  he  admitted  that  he  was 
not  God,  it  may  be  safely  believed  that  he  did  so  admit ; 
but  when  they  say  that  he  also  claimed  that  he  was  God, 
it  may  be  most  capitally  doubted,  for  it  is  much  easier  to 
believe  that  they  would,  in  endeavoring  to  further  their 
own  ends,  manufacture  testimony  unskilfully,  than  that 
Jesus  would  teach  one  thing  to-day  and  the  contrary 
to-morrow. 

I  therefore  cite  such  passages   of  Scripture  as  occur  in 


I  1 8  AN  INQ UIR  Y  INTO 

the  course  of  my  argument  on  this  point  of  the  divinity 
of  Jesus  as  admissio?is,  and,  for  the  reasons  just  given,  un- 
undoubtedly  authentic,  and  good  evidence  against  the 
doctrine  that  Jesus  is,  or  ever  claimed  to  be,  God. 

And  it  will  be  no  answer  to  say  that  these  contradictory 
statements  are  proof  that  the  gospels  were  honestly 
written  as  otherwise  these  contradictions  would  never 
have  been  allowed  to  appear,  because  it  is  not  so  much 
a  question  of  honesty  as  of  correctness,  and  my  position 
is  that  those  which  represent  Jesus  as  he  really  was — an 
inspired  teacher  and  reformer — were  the  original  state- 
ments of  the  gospels,  or  the  traditions  on  which  the 
gospels  are  founded,  and  that  the  other  class  of  state- 
ments representing  him  in  a  different  and  higher  position 
were  the  result  of  exaggeration,  accidental  or  intentional 
— natural  or  fraudulent, — of  his  followers,  and  were  injec- 
ted into  the  previous  accounts  without  those  who  did  it 
realizing,  as  it  was  realized  later,  the  irreconcilable  contra- 
dictions—  those  contradictions  only  becoming  really 
glaring  as  we  elevated  our  conception  of  God. 

Jesus  said,  Matt,  xv.,  24:  "I  am  not  sent  but  unto  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel."  Does  this  mean  that 
the  great  God  of  the  universe  cared  for  none  of  His 
creatures  except  those  who  have  been  called  His  "  chosen 
people  ?  "  Or  does  the  "  house  of  Israel  "  include  all  the 
earth?  Or  did  not  Jesus  merely  mean  to  tell  them  that 
he  was  a  Jew  working  for  the  reformation  and  advance- 
ment of  his  own  people? 

The  evangelists  Luke  and  Matthew,  in  their  desire  to 
prove  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  looked  for  by  the  Jews, 
and  who,  the  prophecy  said,  was  to  be  of  the  line  of  David, 
proceed  to  give  genealogies  to  show  Jesus  to  be  descended 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 1 9 

from  David  through  Joseph,  while  still  claiming  that  no 
blood  of  Joseph  was  in  his  veins, — a  strange  way  to  prove 
kinship.  And  in  these  genealogies  it  is  a  curious  and 
pregnant  fact  that  while  the  two  evangelists  agree  in 
making  Joseph  the  father  of  Jesus,  they  each  give  him  a 
different  paternal  grandfather.  And  from  David  to  Jesus, 
through  Joseph,  Matthew  makes  twenty-eight  generations, 
while  Luke  makes  forty-three,  being  a  difference  of  fifteen 
generations,  amounting  to,  say,  400  to  450  years ;  certainly 
a  rather  startling  discrepancy  to  occur  in  inspired  writings. 
But  perhaps  these  evangelists  were  not  inspired  on  this 
particular  subject. 

At  any  rate,  as  they  claim  Jesus  as  the  son  of  David, 
through  Joseph,  and  as  this  could  not  be  unless  Jesus  was 
the  physical,  natural,  son  of  Joseph  (as  his  contemporaries 
believed),  this  admission  is  stronger  than  the  implication 
conveyed  in  the  statement  in  Matthew  that  Joseph  was 
the  "  husband  of  Mary,  of  whom  was  born  Jesus  ";  or  the 
statement  in  Luke,  in  parentheses  (and  which  looks  very 
much  like  an  interpolation),  as  follows:  "  Jesus  being  (as 
was  supposed)  the  son  of  Joseph." 

Besides,  Luke  traces  his  genealogy  through  David  to 
Adam  "  which  was  the  son  of  God  ";  and  yet  I  believe 
that  it  is  held  that  Adam  was  the  son  of  God  only  figura- 
tively, as  the  true  believers  are  called  the  "  children  of 
God,"  though  where  the  same  expression  is  used  of  Jesus 
it  is  claimed  that  it  must  be  taken  literally. 

Again,  if  Jesus  was  God,  and  his  disciples  knew  it,  it 
seems  strange  that  they  never  worshipped  him  as  such ; 
yet  I  know  of  no  passage  of  Scripture  that  shows  that  they 
ever  worshipped  him  as  God,  or  that  he  ever  desired, 
expected,  or  received  divine  honors. 

I  have  said  that  Jesus'  contemporaries  believed  him  to 


120  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

be  the  son  of  Joseph,  and  the  natural  brother  of  his  four 
brothers  and  two  (at  least)  sisters.  The  parenthesis  of 
Luke  above  quoted  "  as  was  supposed  "  would  show  that 
such  was  the  case ;  but  we  have  more. 

That  his  neighbors  and  fellow-townsmen  so  regarded 
him,  and  had  so  regarded  him  for  more  than  thirty  years, 
is  shown  by  Matt,  xiii.,  55,  56:  "  Is  not  this  the  carpen- 
ter's son?  is  not  his  mother  called  Mary?  and  his 
brethren,  James,  and  Joses,  and  Simon,  and  Judas?  And 
his  sisters,  are  they  not  with  us?  " 

And  again,  Mark  vi.,  3  :  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the 
son  of  Mary,  the  brother  of  James,  and  Joses,  and  of  Juda 
and  Simon,  and  are  not  his  sisters  here  with  us  ?  "  By 
which,  also,  it  would  seem  that  Jesus  had  grown  up  and 
worked  at  his  father's  trade  at  home. 

Again,  Luke  iv.,  32  :  "  And  they  said,  Is  not  this  Joseph's 
son?"  And  John  vi.,  42  :  "  And  they  said,  Is  not  this 
Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we 
know?  " 

So  it  is  certain  that  his  immediate  fellow-citizens  did 
not  believe  in  him  either  as  God,  or  as  the  son  of  God ; 
further,  his  brothers  did  not  believe  in  him — John  vii.,  5. 

Strange  that  with  all  the  wonders  of  the  "  immaculate 
conception,"  the  visits  of  angels,  and  what,  if  all  we  read  be 
true,  their  mother  must  have  told  them,  his  very  brothers 
did  not  believe  in  him ;  and  yet  the  apostle  admits  it. 

But,  stranger  still,  the  probabilities  are  strong  that  even 
his  mother,  Mary,  did  not  believe  in  him. 

"While  yet  he  talked  to  the  people,  behold  his  mother  and  brethren 
stood  without  desiring  to  speak  with  him.  Then  one  said  unto  him,  Behold 
thy  mother  and  thy»brethren  stand  without  desiring  to  speak  with  thee.  But 
he  answered  and  said  unto  him  that  told  him,  Who  is  my  mother?  and  who 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       121 

are  my  brethren  ?  And  he  stretched  forth  his  hand  towards  his  disciples  and 
said,  Behold  my  mother  and  my  brethren,  for  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother,  and  sister,  and 
mother."— Matt,  xii.,  46-50  ;  Mark  iii.,  3i"35- 

It  is  true  Luke  says  (viii.,  19)  that  they  could  not  get  at 
him  for  the  press,  but  as  he,  as  well  as  the  other  apostles, 
represents  them  as  standing  outside,  and  some  one  calling 
his  attention  to  them,  the*fact  of  Mary's  being  outside 
with  her  unbelieving  sons  (for  their  being  Jesus'  brothers 
and    Joseph's    sons    would    show    them    to    be    either 
Mary's   sons    or    step-sons,    I    care    not   which)   striving 
to  interrupt  him  while  he  was  preaching,  and  that  Jesus 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  them,  seems  to  point  very 
strongly  towards  Mary's  unbelief  also.     And  this  view  is 
strengthened  by  the  fact  that  although  the  names  of  some 
of  his  female  followers  are  given,  his  mother  is  not  named 
among  them.     It  is  true  that  John  represents  her,  at  the 
last,  as  at  the  crucifixion,  at  the  foot  of  the  cross,  but  if 
she  was  there,  the  other  evangelists  either  did  not  know 
of  it  or  thought  it  not  worth  mentioning.     But  her  pres- 
ence on  such  an  occasion  was  natural,  without  its  being 
necessary  to  suppose  her  a  believer  in  the  extraordinary 
views  now  held  of  her  son. 

Further,  Jesus  said,  speaking  of  himself  :  "  A  prophet  is 
not  without  honor  but  in  his  own  country,  and  among  his 
own  kin,  and  in  his  own  house."— Mark  vi.,  4.  And  he 
lived  at  Capernaum,  and  not  with  his  family.— Matt,  iv., 
13.  And  he  did  not  or  could  not  perform  his  miracles  at 
Nazareth  because  of  the  unbelief  of  the  people  :  "  And  he 
did  not  many  mighty  works  therebecause  of  theirunbelief." 
—Matt,  xiii.,  58.  "  And  he  could  there  do  no  mighty  work, 
save  that  he  laid  his  hands  on  a  few  sick  folk,  and  healed 


122  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

them.  And  he  marvelled  because  of  their  unbelief." 
— Mark  vi.,  5,  6. 

Does  it  not  seem  strange  that  God  could  be  affected  or 
influenced  by,  or  should  marvel  at,  men's  belief  or  un- 
belief? Does  God's  ability  to  perform  mighty  works 
depend  more  on  the  mental  condition  of  the  beholders 
than  on  His  own  powers  ?     Surely  such  an  idea  is  absurd. 

Again,  Jesus  himself  declares  that  he  is  inferior  to  God 
in  knowledge  :  "  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth 
no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither 
the  son,  but  the  Father" — Mark  xiii.,  32;  in  power: 
"  But  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left  hand  is  not 
mine  to  give,  but  it  shall  be  given  to  them  for  whom  it 
is  prepared" — Mark  x.,  40;  in  virtue:  "And  Jesus 
said  unto  him,  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  There  is  none 
good  but  one,  that  is  God  " — Mark  x.,  18. 

And,  finally,  his  cry  on  the  cross :  "  My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  Mark  xv.,  34,  declares  in 
the  most  emphatic  manner,  and  at  a  time  when,  if  ever, 
all  striving  for  effect,  all  false  pretensions  would  cease,  and 
the  truth  rise  to  the  surface,  that  he  is  not  the  same  with 
God. 

All  of  this,  with  many  other  passages  and  circum- 
stances,— such,  for  instance,  as  his  prayer  in  the  garden  of 
Gethsemane,  that  the  cup,  if  possible,  might  pass  from 
his  lips,  but  "  not  as  /will,  but  as  Thou  wilt  "  ;  and  numer- 
ous other  instances, — would  seem  to  indicate  that  if  Jesus 
was  God,  or  the  son,  in  the  sense  of  offspring,  of  God,  co- 
eternal  and  consubstantial,  co-equal  and  divine,  he  himself 
was  ignorant  of  the  fact  ;  for  we  have  no  right  to  assume 
that  on  such  an  important  subject  as  who  and  what  he 
was,  he  would  knowingly  mislead  the  very  people  he  had 
come  to  save. 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 23 

And  this  argument  is  based  entirely  upon  the  internal 
evidence  of  the  Gospels  without  reference  aliunde,  and 
without  appealing  to  natural  reason,  which  would  seem  to 
abhor  the  idea  that  the  great  Almighty  God,  Ruler  of 
the  entire  universe,  could  or  would  engender  a  physical 
son  to  be  borne  and  born,  in  a  purely  human  way,  by 
and  of  a  woman,  His  own  handiwork,  upon  this  speck  of 
matter  which  we  call  earth. 

I  do  not  care  to  discuss,  at  least  at  this  time,  the 
theories  devised  to  explain  and  reconcile  the  contradic- 
tions and  admissions  just  given.  As  I  have  said,  I  cannot 
believe  that  Jesus  would  utter  contradictions,  and  I  accept 
in  its  literal  sense  the  text  which  is  consistent  with  his 
character  and  with  common-sense,  and  reject  the  other  as 
being  a  pure  invention,  or  a  figure  of  speech.  For,  had 
they  really  been  said  as  reported,  though  the  theories  of 
the  Church  may  explain  away,  in  the  minds  of  learned 
theologians,  these  seeming  contradictions  so  that  they  are 
no  longer  contradictions  to  them,  at  the  time  they  were 
uttered,  and  to  the  common  people  to  whom  they  were 
said,  they  would  have  been  as  contradictory  and  as  con- 
fusing and  misleading  as  they  are  to  the  mass  of  men  now. 

Nor  do  I  care  to  discuss  the  questions  as  to  how  much, 
if  any,  of  the  accounts  in  the  Gospels  are  original  with  the 
evangelists,  or  interpolated  by  later  writers,  nor  how  much 
of  that  which  is  original  may  be  incorrectly  reported  owing 
to  the  desire  to  prove  a  point,  and  the  inexactness  conse- 
quent upon  reducing  to  writing  events  and  words  seen  and 
heard  long  before.  These  matters  will  be  touched  on,  to 
some  extent,  in  my  Concluding  Remarks. 

The  foregoing  is  about  what  I  wrote  to  my  friend,  the 
Bishop,  in  my  first  attempt  to  show  him   why  I  could  not 


124  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

agree  with  ,his  Church  in  its  doctrine  as  to  Jesus;  and  I 
closed  that  branch  of  my  letter  with  the  following  beauti- 
ful tribute  to  Jesus  from  An  Analysis  of  Religions  Belief, 
by  Viscount  Amberly.  After  speaking  of  Jesus  being 
called  the  "  Man  of  Sorrow,"  and  showing  that  the  term 
was  not  particularly  appropriate  to  him,  he  says,  page  368 : 

"  While,  then,  I  see  no  proof  of  the  peculiar  sorrow  ascribed  to  him  on  the 
strength  of  a  prophecy,  I  freely  admit  that  he  had  the  melancholy  which  be- 
longs to  a  sympathetic  heart.  His  words  of  regret  over  Jerusalem  are  un- 
surpassed in  their  beauty.  At  this  closing  period  of  his  career  we  may  indeed 
detect  the  sadness  of  disappointment,  and  in  the  bitter  cry  that  was  wrung 
from  him  at  the  end,  '  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ?  '  we 
look  down  for  a  moment  into  an  abyss  of  misery  which  it  is  painful  to  con- 
template :  physical  suffering  and  a  shaken  faith,  the  agonies  of  unaccom- 
plished purposes,  and  the  still  more  fearful  agony  of  desertion  by  the  loving 
Father  in  whom  he  had  put  his  trust. 

But  Jesus,  though  he  knew  it  not,  had  done  his  work.  Nay,  he  had  done 
more  than  he  himself  had  intended.  After-ages  saw  in  him— what  he  saw 
only  in  his  God — an  ideal  to  be  worshipped,  and  a  power  to  be  addressed  in 
prayer.  We,  who  are  free  from  this  exaggeration  of  reverence,  may  yet  con- 
tinue to  pay  him  the  high  and  unquestioned  honor  which  his  unflinching 
devotion  to  his  duty,  his  gentle  regard  for  the  weak  and  suffering,  his  uncor- 
rupted  purity  of  mind,  and  his  self-sacrificing  love  so  abundantly  deserve." 

I  give  the  Bishop's  reply  textually,  merely  correcting 
some  palpable  verbal  errors  of  his  amanuensis,  because  if 
any  of  it  were  omitted  it  might  be  thought  that  the 
omitted  part  was  important. 

The  quotation  from  Amberly  seems  to  have  had  any- 
thing but  a  soothing  effect,  and  he  comments  on  it,  before 
replying  to  my  argument  on  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  in  the 
following  words  : 

x  "  Your  quotation  from  Viscount  Amberly  is  taken,  you 
say,  from  page  368  of  his  book.  Christ  is  called  by  the 
prophet :  the  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  infir- 
mity.— Is.  ch.  liii. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.        1 25 

"  The  learned  Viscount  can  see  no  claim  that  Jesus  has 
to  this  prophetic  title.  He  can  only  see  the  '  melancholy 
of  a  sympathetic  heart.'  Christ  was  dragged  before  dif- 
ferent tribunals,  in  each  of  which  every  form  of  law  and 
justice  was  outraged  in  His  person  ;  uncondemned,  He  was 
struck  in  the  face  in  open  court.  He  was  blindfolded  ; 
they  gave  Him  blows,  and  spat  in  His  face.  Innocent,  He 
was  rejected  as  more  worthy  of  death  than  a  thief  and 
murderer.  The  judge  in  open  court  declared  Him  inno- 
cent, and  yet  condemned  Him  to  the  cruel  and  shameful 
scourging.  He  was  given  over  to  an  entire  cohort  of  sol- 
diers who  treated  him  as  they  pleased.  .  Stripped  naked, 
He  was  crowned  as  a  mock  king  ;  clad  in  a  purple  rag,  and 
sceptre  in  hand,  He  was  plunged  into  a  sea  of  taunts  and 
scoffs.  Dragged  through  the  streets  of  the  capital  city, 
between  two  thieves,  He  was  brought  to  the  place  of  pub- 
lic execution,  and  there  put  to  the  most  shameful  death 
ever  invented  by  man.  Naked  on  a  gibbet  which  insult- 
ingly bore  a  mock  title  of  His  royalty,  He  was,  with 
unheard  of  barbarism,  insulted  in  His  dying  moments. 
And  yet  with  all  this  before  Him,  and  much  more  which  I 
have  not  put  down,  the  Viscount  Amberly  cannot  see  any 
claim  of  Christ  to  be  the  prophetic  '  man  of  sorrows.' 
Were  the  Viscount  Amberly 's  physical  sight  as  dull  as  his 
mental  vision  then  truly  his  would  be  a  hopeless  case  of 
blindness. 

"  Having  stripped  Christ  of  His  touching  title  of '  man  of 
sorrows,' the  Viscount  smears  over  Him  some  balderdash 
about '  melancholy  of  a  sympathetic  heart.'  But  Viscount 
Amberly  would  lower  Christ  still  more.  He  dares  assert 
that  Christ  died  with  a  '  shaken  faith — the  agonies  of  un- 
accomplished purposes.' 

"  Christ  naked  to  the  gaze  of  an  indecent  mob  is  not  so 


126  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

much  humiliated  as  these  words  would  make  Him.  His 
mission  was  not  a  failure.  That  mission  was  to  teach  the 
world  ; — Before  Christ  we  find  everywhere  the  most  shock- 
ing paganism  in  religion  ;  we  find  woman  a  slave  ;  the 
child,  when  allowed  to  be  born,  often  used  for  the  most 
hideous  purposes  ;  and  a  slavery  terrible  to  read  of.  Now, 
if  there  is  anything  clear,  it  is  that  Christ,  so  far  from 
having  a  '  shaken  faith  '  or  sorrowing  over  unaccomplished 
purposes,  was  perfectly  conscious  of  the  success  of  His 
great  mission  to  this  world.  Christ  had  taught  as  no  one 
had  ever  taught.  He  had  preached  those  beautiful  truths 
which  had  made  paganism  flee.  The  last  act  in  the  drama 
of  His  wonderful  career  had  come.  His  own  all-atoning 
sacrifice  so  often  predicted  by  Him  was  to  commence  that 
night.  The  immortal  one  for  sinners,  the  just  for  the  un- 
just, was  to  suffer.  And  like  a  lamb  that  openeth  not  his 
mouth,  He  was  led  to  the  slaughter.  Instead  of  dying 
with  '  a  shaken  faith — the  agonies  of  unaccomplished  pur- 
poses,'—  Christ  says  that  night,  addressing  the  Father: 
'  I  have  accomplished  the  work  which  Thou  didst  give  me 
that  I  should  do.'  '  Instead  of  a  '  shaken  faith,'  He 
says :  '  Do  not  fear,  I  have  conquered  the  world.'  And 
when,  hanging  upon  the  cross,  and  about  to  die,  instead 
of  the  '  agonies  of  unaccomplished  purposes,'  it  is  He  who 
tells  us  with  His  latest  breath  :  '  consummatum  est ' —  it  is 
consummated. 

"  The  greatest  of  works  was  accomplished  by  Christ. 
Socrates,  Plato,  Aristotle,  and  other  great  men  of  Antiquity, 
shocked  at  the  paganism  of  their  countrymen,  endeavored 
to  teach  the  truth  about  God,  and  a  pure  morality.  But 
their  teachings,   while  containing  some  truths,  were  all 

1  Another  illustration  of  the  fact  that  he  was  not  God,  but  merely  God's 
faithful  servant.— W.  D.  H. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 27 

deeply  alloyed  with  many  grave  mistakes.  They  were 
failures,  not  only  as  teachers,  but  they  had  not  the  power 
to  make  the  multitude  accept  their  teachings.  As  a 
modern  writer  has  sarcastically  said,  they  '  could  not  per- 
suade those  who  lived  in  the  same  street  with  them.'  A 
mere  handful  of  followers  was  their  only  success.  Not  so 
Jesus  Christ.  His  pure  and  sublime  teachings,  unalloyed 
by  error,  have  been  the  admiration  of  the  greatest  ge- 
niuses. Where  His  doctrines — where  Christianity — has 
been  accepted,  polytheism  has  disappeared  ;  woman  has 
ceased  to  be  the  ignoble  being  that  she  was,  and  still  is 
among  nations  that  have  Him  not ;  the  child  has  been 
protected  ;  slavery,  with  its  countless  abuses,  has  disap- 
peared, and  just  those  nations  have  attained  a  perfection 
in  just  laws,  true  liberties,  and  in  all  the  arts  and  sciences, 
unrivalled  in  the  history  of  mankind.  Compare  China, 
Turkey,  Africa,  with  the  Christian  nations  of  Europe  and 
America,  and  all  that  I  have  asserted  is  abundantly  proved. 
Christ  taught  not  only  by  His  doctrine,  but  these  doc- 
trines were  illustrated  by  His  own  most  brilliant  example. 
And  nowhere  does  even  Christ  preach  sublimer  truths 
than  during  His  blessed  sufferings  and  death.  Every  age 
has  endorsed  the  saying  of  that  stupendous  genius  of 
Hippo  :  '  Signum  illud,  ubi  fixa  erant  membra  morientis, 
etiam  cathedra  fuerit  magistri  docentis.'  And  what 
name  on  earth  has  been  so  tenderly  loved  by  all  the  pure 
and  gifted  ornaments  of  our  race  as  the  name  of  Jesus? 
To  countless  myriads  of  the  most  enlightened  men  and 
noblest  of  women  the  name  of  Jesus  has  been  like  sweet- 
est strains  of  angelic  music,  or  as  strong  wine  firing  the 
heart  to  heroic  deeds  and  every  virtue.  And  yet  with  all 
this  as  clear  as  the  noontide,  your  deistic  Viscount  repre- 
sents Christ  as  a  failure,  and  as  avowing  His  utter  failure 


128  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

at  the  very  moment  when  He  was  asserting  His  grandest 
victory  over  the  world,  sin,  and  hell.  Surely  to  put  any 
truth  into  the  Viscount's  skull,  it  would  require  a  surgical 
operation. 

"  You  deny  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  Your  argu- 
ments are,  in  the  main,  the  following,  viz.  :  J 

"  ist.  Such  passages  of  the  Bible  which  could  not  be 
attributed  to  one  who  is  God — as  '  The  Father  is  greater 
than  I,'  etc. 

"  2d.  The  disciples  '  never  worshipped  Him  ' — and  it 
does  not  appear  that  '  He  ever  desired,  expected,  or  re- 
ceived divine  honors.' 

"  3d.  That  His  contemporaries  and  His  relatives  did 
not  believe  Him  to  be  God. 

"4th.  The  'probabilities  are  strong  that  even  His 
mother,  Mary,  did  not  believe  in  Him.' 

"  Permit  me  to  say,  that  the  whole  of  your  first  argument 
shows  that  your  mind,  so  honest,  has  not  as  yet  learned 
that  cardinal  doctrine  of  Christianity — the  Incarnation. 
Without  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  I  entirely  agree 
with  you  that  the  Gospels  would  represent  Christ  as  saying 
of  Himself  contradictory  things. 

"  You  endeavor  to  escape  the  dilemma — God  or  impostor 
— by  saying  that  those  passages  of  the  Bible  referring  to 
Christ  as  God  are  interpolations.  We  could  not  have 
recourse  to  such  a  subterfuge.  For  the  passages  of  the 
Bible  showing  Christ  to  be  God,  are  not  a  few  fugitive 
pieces  scattered  here  and  there  through  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  which  we  might  have  supposed  to  have  crept 
in  by  interpolation  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  tear  out  these 
texts  and  we  will  be  obliged  to  destroy  an  immense  part 

1  These  were  not  my  arguments,  but  merely  some  of  the  corroborative 
points.— W.  D.  H. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 29 

of  the  Gospels.  We  need  not,  however,  have  recourse  to 
this  subterfuge ;  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation 
not  only  shows  that  Christ  did  not  utter  contradictory 
statements,  but  that  without  such  statements  we  would  have 
only  a  one-sided  view  of  Christ.  Christ  is  not  man  only 
— nor  God  only.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Incarna- 
tion is  that  the  Word,  the  second  person  of  the  ador- 
able Trinity,  the  Son  of  God — who  is  consubstantial 
with  the  Father — and  who  was  with  God — and  who  is 
God — and  by  whom  all  things  were  made — assumed  hu- 
man nature  in  its  entirety.  The  Holy  Ghost  formed  in 
the  spotless  womb  of  the  ever  Virgin  Mary  a  human 
body  and  a  human  soul.  In  this  human  body  and  human 
soul  from  the  first  instant  of  its  creation,  the  Son  of  God 
thus  assumed  our  human  nature.  While  preserving  His 
own  divine  nature  entire  and  undiminished,  He  took  a 
human  body  and  a  human  soul  with  their  infirmities  and 
weaknesses — sin  only  excepted.  Thus  Christ  was  a  divine 
person  with  a  human  nature.  Two  distinct  natures — the 
human  and  divine — were  united  in  one  personality — i.  e.y 
the  person  of  the  Son  of  God.  In  this  each  nature  re- 
tained all  of  its  respective  attributes  and  laws.  Christ 
therefore  possessing  each  nature  in  its  entirety,  possessed 
the  attributes  of  each  nature.  To  illustrate  this  union  of 
two  distinct  natures  in  one  person,  we  can  refer,  in  a 
qualified  sense,  to  man.  For  our  body  is  a  material  sub- 
stance like  the  animals — while  the  soul  is  a  spirit  and  im- 
material. Like  the  animals  our  body  suffers  hunger, 
thirst,  etc.  But  united  to  this  gross  material  substance 
there  is  the  soul.  The  soul  is  a  spirit,  and  therefore  of  a 
nature  entirely  different  from  the  body.  The  soul  can 
reason  and  think.  It  can  soar  to  the  loftiest  heights  of 
philosophy  and  theology,  and  contemplate   God  Himself. 


130  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

It  will  not  be  satisfied  with  the  lower  sensual  cravings  of 
the  body — but  seeks  higher  spiritual  pleasures.  It  finds  its 
delight  in  knowledge,  the  sciences,  and  in  the  pursuit  of 
learning.  It  has  its  own  fair  realm  of  pleasures,  sufferings, 
and  ambition,  to  which  the  body — our  animal  nature — is  an 
utter  stranger.  Yet  these  two  natures,  so  entirely  different 
from  one  another,  are  intimately  united  by  laws  mysterious. 
The  operations  of  the  two  natures  go  on  daily  ;  and 
each  person  speaks  indifferently  of  the  operations  of  each 
nature.  Every  one  says  :  /hunger,  /  think,  though  it  is  the 
body,  the  material  substance,  which  hungers  in  its  craving 
for  food,  and  not  the  soul ;  and  it  is  the  soul  which  thinks, 
our  animal  nature,  flesh  and  blood,  being  incapable  of  re- 
flection. In  thus  speaking  we  do  not  utter  contradic- 
tory statements,  for  we  have  only  one  personality  with 
two  different  natures.  Now  in  Christ  there  are  two  dis- 
tinct natures  united  in  one  person,  each  with  its  proper 
laws  and  operations.  The  entire  human  nature  and  the 
divine  are  united  in  one  personality.  We  say  of  Christ 
that  He  slept,  and  we  say  of  Him  that  He  is  the  ever- 
vigilant.  We  do  not  contradict  ourselves.  For  Christ's 
human  body  slept,  while  His  divine  nature  knows  no  such 
weakness.  Christ,  therefore,  speaks  indifferently  of  the 
operations  and  laws  of  each  nature.  '  I  thirst,'  said 
Christ,  '  and  before  Abraham  was  made,  I  am.'  Christ 
certainly  could  say :  '  I  and  my  Father  are  one,'  when 
speaking  of  His  divine  nature.  For  no  one  would  be  so 
foolish  as  to  think  that  Christians  supposed  the  finite 
body,  the  material  flesh  and  blood,  of  Jesus  Christ  to  be 
anything  with  the  Infinite  Spirit,  God  the  Father.  And 
when  He  in  human  flesh  and  blood  said  that  He  was  going 
to  the  Father,  '  for  the  Father  is  greater  than  I,'  the 
whole  context  showed    that     He    was  speaking  of    His 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       131 

human  nature.  For  there  can  be  no  talk  of  the  divine 
nature  going  from  one  place  to  another,  since  it  is  every- 
where. But  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  like  any  other 
human  body  and  soul,  is  not  everywhere,  and  must  leave 
one  place  to  go  to  another.  And  therefore  when  He  said 
that  He  was  going  to  the  Father,  '  for  the  Father  is 
greater  than  I,'  He  spoke  in  His  human  nature,  of  which 
it  must  be  truly  said  that  it  went  from  one  place  to 
another,  and  was  inferior  to  God  the  Father.1  All 
these  texts  serve  only  to  prove  that  Christ  had  a  true, 
real  human  nature,  a  body  exactly  like  ours,  capable  of 
suffering,  and  a  soul  like  ours,  subject  to  all  the  emotions 
of  our  human  soul,  and  which  suffered  from  all  the  griefs, 
the  agonies,  the  abandonments  of  God's  sensible  presence, 
and  the  other  sorrows  that  souls  have  endured  in  this 
world. 

"  The  Bible  gives  a  true  history  and  representation  of 
Christ.  Now  it  would  be  only  a  one-sided  view  of  Christ 
did  the  Gospels  represent  Him  as  a  man  only,  or  as  God 
only.  But  the  workings  of  each  nature  give  us  the  true 
view  of  Christ  ;  therefore  your  first  argument  against 
Christ's  divinity,  based  upon  texts  of  the  Bible  which 
show  Him  to  be  a  man,  falls  to  the  ground.  For  Christ 
was  truly  man.  He  was  also  truly  God.  The  divine 
nature  was  really  united  to  a  real  human  nature.  Hence 
Christ  calls  Himself  the  son  of  man — and  also  the  Son  of 
God.  A  correct  history  of  Christ  must  therefore  repre- 
sent to  us  scenes  in  Him  which  were  merely  human,  and 
attributes  which  belong  only  to  God.     And  this  the  Gos- 

1  If  God  is  everywhere — if  Christ  was  God — why  should  his  human  nature 
wish  to  go  to  the  Father  ?     How  could  his  human  nature  go  to  the  Father  ? 
Where  would  it  find  Him  any  more    distinctly  than   where  it  then  was? 
Was  not  the  Father  with  it  there  and  then  ?     Was  not  Christ  that  Father 
— W.  D.  H. 


132  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

pels  do.  Therefore  those  texts  which  you  suppose 
to  be  contradictory,  are  not  only  not  contradictory, 
but  are  necessary  to  show  us  that  Christ  had  really 
two  distinct  natures  united  in  one  person.  Indeed 
there  have  been  many  heretics  who  deny  that  Christ 
had  really  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood.  They  asserted  that 
He  had  a  body  only  in  appearance.  And,  strange  to  say, 
the  first  heresies  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation 
nearly  all  deny  that  Christ  had  really  a  body  and  soul — 
while  they  did  not  doubt  for  a  moment  that  He  was  God. 
Consequently  your  first  argument  amounts  to  nothing, 
and  only  betrays  a  forgetfulness  of  the  grand,  fundamen- 
tal doctrine  of  Christianity,  the  Incarnation. 

"  Your  next  argument  to  prove  that  Christ  is  not  divine 
is,  that  '  it  does  not  appear  that  Christ  ever  desired,  ex- 
pected, or  received  divine  honors,'  and  '  the  disciples 
never  worshipped  Him.'  You  say  that  a  great  deal  of 
what  you  have  written  you  owe  to  Viscount  Amberly's 
book.  I  had  suspected  that  you  had  trusted  too  much  to 
that  worthless  book.  Had  you  trusted  to  your  own  good 
judgment  and  followed  reliable  authors,  you  would  have 
seen  the  overwhelming  proof  that  Christ  really  did  expect 
to  receive  divine  honors,  and  that  the  disciples  believed 
Him  to  be  God  and  worshipped  Him  as  such. 

"  First  of  all,  Christ  claims  for  Himself  the  same  honors 
as  those  paid  to  the  Father  :  '  That  all  men  may  honor 
the  Son  as  they  honor  the  Father  ' — John  v.  Now  we  wor- 
ship the  Father  by  faith,  hope,  and  charity — and  Christ 
asked  the  faith,  hope,  and  charity  which  the  creature  can 
give  to  God  only.  I  will  now  make  this  evident.  Christ 
claims  that  faith  :  '  He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  hath  life 
everlasting,  but  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son,  shall  not 
see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him' — John  iii., 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 33 

36.  'He  that  believeth  in  Him  is  not  judged.  But  he 
that  doth  not  believe  is  already  judged,  because  he  be- 
lieveth not  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  ' 
— John  iii.,  18.  'Jesus  said  to  him,  Dost  thou  believe  in 
the  Son  of  God  ?  and  he  said,  I  believe,  Lord.  And 
falling  down  he  adored  Him  ' — John  ix.,  35.  Christ  claims 
thus  the  faith  which  the  creature  can  give  only  to  one 
who  is  God.  But  He  also  claims  the  hope  and  charity  due 
to  God  alone,  and  holds  out  promises  which  God  alone 
can  make.  t  If  any  man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my  word, 
and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will  come  to  him, 
and  will  make  our  abode  with  him' — John  xiv.,  23.  What 
man  can  claim  a  love  which  will  be  rewarded  by  the  pos- 
session of  God  the  Father?  And  who  else  but  a  God  can 
promise  to  come  with  the  Father  and  dwell  in  the  soul, 
not  of  one,  but  of  all  men  who  will  love  him  ?  '  He  that 
loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me,  and  he  that  loveth 
son  or  daughter  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me.' 
— Matt,  x.,  37. 

"  Every  one  that  hath  left  house,  or  brethren,  or  sisters, 
or  father,  or  mother,  or  wife,  or  children  for  my  name's 
sake  shall  receive  an  hundred-fold,  and  shall  possess  life 
everlasting ' — Matt,  xix.,  29.  Christ  repeatedly  declares 
that  on  the  judgment  day  He  will  judge  all  men  ;  in  Matt. 
xxv.,  32,  He  gives  the  very  sentence  which  as  supreme 
Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead  He  will  pass  upon  the 
good  and  the  wicked.  The  giving  of  life — an  attribute 
of  God — Christ  claims  repeatedly,  '  For  as  the  Father 
raiseth  up  the  dead  and  giveth  life,  so  the  Son  giveth  life 
to  whom  He  will' — John  v.,  21.  '  Every  one  who  seeth 
the  Son  and  believeth  in  him  may  have  life  everlasting, 
and  I  will  raise  him  up  in  the  last  day' — John  vi.,  40.  '  And 
/  give  them  life  everlasting ;  and  they  shall  not  perish  for- 


134  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

ever — and  no  man  shall  pluck  ,  them  out  of  my  hand  ' 
— John  x.,  28.  '  All  my  things  are  thine  [Father's]  and 
thine  are  mine' — John  xvii.,  10.  'For  what  things  so- 
ever He  the  [Father]  doeth,  these  the  son  doth  in  like 
manner' — John  v.,  19.  'I  am  the  resurrection  and  the 
life.  He  that  believeth  in  me  although  he  be  dead  shall 
live,  and  every  one  that  liveth  and  believeth  in  me  shall 
not  die  forever' — John  xi.,  25.  'He  knew  all  men  .  .  . 
He  knew  what  was  in  men  ' — John  ii.  Christ  says  :  '  I  am 
the  light  of  the  world.  He  who  followeth  me,  walketh 
not  in  darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of  life ' — John 
viii.  All  these  here  claimed  by  Christ  are  beyond  the 
slightest  doubt  divine  attributes,  and  in  demanding  of  men 
to  recognize  in  Him,  and  believe  Him  to  be  endowed 
with,  such  attributes,  Christ  claimed,  in  the  highest  sense 
of  the  word,  divine  honors. 

"Your  assertion  that  Christ  never  was  adored  by  His 
disciples  is  equally  reversed  by  the  facts  of  history.  '  And 
they  [the  disciples]  adored  Him  ' — Matt,  xxviii.  St. 
Thomas  exclaimed:  ' Dominus  mens  et  Dens  mens.'  '0 
KvpwS  juov  nai  6  QeoZ  juov,'  John  xx.  My  Lord  and  my 
God.  I  have  quoted  the  Latin  and  the  Greek  text  to 
show  that  this  is  not  an  exclamation,  for  then  it  would  be 
in  the  vocative  case  ;  but  as  in  both  languages  the  nomi- 
native case  is  used,  St.  Thomas  adored  Jesus  as  his  Lord 
and  God  when  using  the  above-quoted  expression.  Christ 
not  only  did  not  rebuke  St.  Thomas  for  giving  Him  divine 
honors,  but  gently  rebuked  him  for  being  so  tardy  in 
yielding  to  His  divinity.  As  other  evidences  that  Christ 
was  worshipped  by  His  disciples,  I  will  quote  you  a  few 
more  texts.  '  I  believe,  Lord,  and  falling  down  he  adored 
him  ' — John  ix.  '  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other 
name  under  heaven  given  to  men  whereby  we  must  be 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 35 

saved  ' — Acts  iv.  '  Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life. 
And  we  have  known  and  have  believed  that  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God  '—John  vi.  '  Thou  art  Christ  the 
Son  of  the  living  God  '—Matt.  xvi.  That  St.  John  be- 
lieved Christ  to  be  God,  I  simply  refer  you  to  the  first 
chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel.  The  entire  chapter  is  a 
demonstration  that  Christ  was  God.  St.  Paul  everywhere 
in  his  epistles  shows  his  belief  that  Christ  is  God.  A  few 
quotations  will  suffice  to  make  good  this  assertion.  '  For 
in  Him  [Christ]  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head corporally  '—Col.  ii.  '  When  He  bringeth  the  first- 
begotten  into  the  world  he  saith,  And  let  all  the  angels  of 
God  adore  him  [Christ].  And  of  the  angels  indeed  he 
saith  :  He  that  maketh  his  angels  spirits.  But  to  the  son  : 
Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever'— Heb.  i.  '  Of 
whom  is  Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  who  is  over  all 
things,  God  blessed  forever  '—Rom.  ix.  I  might  bring 
many,  very  many  other  texts  from  the  Gospels  and  writ- 
ings of  Christ's  disciples,  but  these  will  suffice  to  show, 
beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  His  disciples  believed 
Christ  to  be  God  and  adored  Him  as  such. 

"  Your  next  argument  against  the  divinity  of  Christ  is, 
that  His  contemporaries  did  not  believe  Him  to  be  God. 
If  you  say  that  some  of  Christ's  contemporaries  did  not 
believe  in  Him,  I  consent.  But  if  you  mean  to  assert  that 
all  of  Christ's  contemporaries  did  not  believe  in  Him,  you 
are  asserting  what  is  absolutely  false.  Christ  did  not  all 
at  once  hold  up  His  divinity  to  the  astonished  gaze  of  an 
unexpecting  world.  But  as  the  sun  rises  not  with  the  full 
splendor  of  meridian  brilliancy,  but  with  a  certain  grada- 
tion and  progressive  increase  of  light  from  dawn  till  noon, 
—so  with  the  Sun  of  justice.  He  remained  hidden  and 
retired  under  Joseph's  roof,  His  sacred  humanity  grow- 


I36  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

ing  in  the  natural  way,  like  any  other  human  body,  from 
infancy  to  childhood,  and  from  youth  to  its  full  bloom  in 
manhood.  He  kept  the  great  purpose  of  His  mortal  career 
concealed  all  this  time  under  the  veil  of  His  seclusion 
in  Nazareth.  That  wonderful  wisdom  spoke  not  ;  His 
mighty  powers  were  hidden  under  the  apparent  weakness 
of  His  human  nature.  During  the  perioqj  of  His  hidden 
life  of  thirty  years  He  quietly  attended  the  Church  ser- 
vices, ami  not  a  sermon  fell  from  His  silent  lips  to  tell 
of  the  lore  of  wisdom  that  lay  concealed  under  that  quiet 
exterior.  There  were  doubtless  the  sick,  the  infirm,  and 
the  dying  during  that  long  period.  But  nothing  was  done 
by  Him  to  manifest  the  power  which  He  possessed.  But 
all  this  is  no  argument  against  His  possessing  the  powers. 
The  rank  weeds  and  grass  had  flourished  and  withered 
for  ages,  and  the  savage  Indian  and  the  Spaniard  and 
American  had  roamed  and  chased  over  the  fields  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  little  was  dreamed  of  the  mines  of  gold  that 
lay  hid  beneath.  But  the  hour  came  when  to  the  eyes  of 
an  astonished  world  was  revealed  the  huge  mine  of  gold. 
Christ  lived  in  retirement  under  His  foster-father's  roof. 
Little  did  the  ignorant  villagers  of  boorish  Galilee  dream 
of  the  wonderful  treasure  hidden  away  in  Nazareth.  He 
concealed  His  divinity,  and  He  appeared  to  their  eyes  as 
only  the  carpenter's  son.  But  when  He  would  reveal 
that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  it  was  in  other  towns  and  in 
other  places  than  the  home  of  His  hidden  life  that  the 
golden  eloquence  and  prodigious  miracles  were  displayed 
as  proofs  of  His  claims.  That  therefore  some  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Galilee  would  not  believe  Him  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  is  of  no  consequence  for  us.  For  we  would  not  be- 
lieve Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  had  we  no  other  proof 
than  that  the  ignorant  peasants  of  Galilee  believed    it. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 37 

And  we  will  not  reject  His  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
because,   forsooth,  they   refused  to   admit  it.     What  we 
wish  to  know  is,  Did  Christ  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God  ? 
And  that  Christ  seriously  made  that   claim,  the  proof  is 
simply  overwhelming.     For  we  read  in  John  x.  that  the 
Jews  took  up  stones  wherewith  to  stone  Him — and  why  ? 
'  Because  thou,  being  a  man,   makest  thyself  God.'     And 
in  John  v.,   '  Hereupon,  therefore,  the  Jews   sought  the 
more  to  kill  him,  because    he   did   not    only  break    the 
sabbath,  but   also  said  God  was  his   Father,  making  him- 
self  equal  to  God.'     That   the   disciples  of    Christ  fully 
admitted  His  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God  is  beyond  all 
doubt,  as  I  have  shown  above.     Now  they  surely  were 
His  contemporaries,  and  certainly  in  a  better  condition, 
being  the  daily  witnesses  of   His  teachings  and   miracles, 
to   know    what   Christ   claimed,  and   the  justice  of    that 
claim.     But  besides  the  testimony  of  the  disciples  and  of 
the  Jewish  people  that  Christ  really  claimed  to  be   the 
Son    of  God,  we    have   the   judicial    proceedings   against 
Christ — His  trial  and  condemnation.     In  open  court  wit- 
ness after  witness  charged  Him  with  claiming  to  be  the 
Son  of  God.     At  length  the  judge  officially  interrogates 
Him.     And  when  amid  the  solemnities  of  the  trial  Christ 
declares  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  the  entire  court 
and  assembled  witnesses  united  in  declaring  Him  guilty 
of  blasphemy,  and,  consequently,  according  to  their  law, 
deserving  of  death.     When,  again,  Christ  was  taken  into 
the  court  over  which  presided  the  Roman  governor,  the 
legal    accusation    brought    against    Him   was    that    He 
claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God.    Your  training  as  a  lawyer 
will  doubtless  teach  you  that  the  legal  proceedings  of  two 
courts  of  justice  are  certainly  ample  proof  that  the  con- 
temporaries of  Christ  knew  that   He  claimed   to  be  the 


138  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

Son  of  God.  That  many  of  His  contemporaries,  while 
acknowledging  that  Christ  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
still  refused  to  believe  in  Him,  is  no  proof  against  His 
divinity.  There  are  many  atheists  who  deny  God's  very 
existence  ;  but  it  is  not  proof  that  God  does  not  exist. 
You  asserted  that  Christ  did  not  claim  to  be  divine,  and 
that  His  contemporaries  knew  nothing  of  the  claim.  I 
have  shown  you  that  there  is  overwhelming  proof  that 
Christ  claimed  to  be  God,  and  demanded  divine  honors  ; 
that  the  disciples — surely  His  contemporaries — admitted 
His  claim,  and  gave  Him  divine  honors;  and  that  the 
Jewish  people  and  the  courts  of  the  land  fully  acknowl- 
edged that  Christ  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 

"  Now  as  to  your  remarks  about  Christ's  relatives ;  your 
words  are  as  follows  :  '  Strange  that  with  all  the  wonders 
of  the  immaculate  conception,  the  visits  of  angels,  and 
what,  if  all  we  read  be  true,  their  mother  must  have  told 
them,  his  very  brothers  did  not  believe  in  him.'  This  is 
a  medley  indeed.  What  has  the  conception  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary  to  do  with  Christ's  Incarnation  ?  And  will 
you  please  tell  me  what  was  the  necessity,  physical  or 
moral,  which  acted  so  irresistibly  on  Mary  that  she  '  must 
have  told  them.'  Far  from  your  view,  the  Gospels  por- 
tray Mary  as  quietly  keeping  everything  in  her  own  heart. 
They  tell  us  that  she  very  prudently  said  nothing,  even 
to  her  spouse  St.  Joseph,  of  the  miraculous  conception  of 
Christ  in  her  womb.  Her  silence  exposed  her  to  sus- 
picions the  most  galling  to  a  chaste  woman's  heart. 
Where,  then,  is  your  proof  for  asserting  that  Mary  must 
have  told  all  this  to  others?  That  the  brothers  and 
sisters  of  Jesus  were  not  brothers  and  sisters  to  Him  in 
the  narrow  sense  of  our  English  words,  can  easily  be 
shown.    That  the  ever  Blessed  Mary  was  a  Virgin  having 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.        1 39 

no  other  child  than  the  miraculously  born  Jesus,  has  been 
the    constant    teaching   of    all    Christians  from  the  com- 
mencement.    The  title  of  '  the  Virgin  '  has  been  given 
her  in  all  ages;    the  writings  of  all  history  are  here    to 
prove  this  ;  and  therefore  perfectly  unknown  to  any  age 
the  high  honor  of  being  the  carnal  son  or  daughter  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin.     The  Bible  was  not  written  in   English, 
but   was  written   in  the  Hebrew  and   Greek.     We  must  . 
therefore  consult  the  '  modus  loquendi '   of  the   Bible  to 
ascertain  its  definite  meaning.     Any  one  translating  from 
the  German  would,  on  coming  across  the  word  '  Vetter,' 
or  '  Gebruder,'  or   '  Geschwester,'  be  obliged  to  consult 
the    context    of    the    book.     For    these    words    mean 
brother,    sister;    and     also     a    much    wider    relationship 
is  just  as  often   expressed   by  them,  and  which  can  be 
determined  only  by    the   context.     And  this   is  exactly 
the    peculiarity    of    the    Bible     in    using    these    words. 
In  Genesis,  chap.  xi.  and  xii.,  we  are  shown  that  Lot  is 
the  son   of  Abraham's  brother  ;  yet  in  the  next  chapter, 
verse  8,  Abraham  says  to  Lot,  '  fratres  enim  sumus  '—for 
we  are  brothers.     Again,   Paralipomenon,   chap,  xv.,  we 
again  see  the  word    '  fratres,'  brothers  and   sisters,  used 
evidently  in  the  sense  of  relatives.     '  Wiel  et  fratres  ejus 
centum  viginti ' — Wiel  and  his  one  hundred  and  twenty 
brothers  ;  and  so   repeatedly  in   this  chapter  is  the  word 
thus  used.     In  Job  xlii. :  '  Venerunt  autem  adeum  omnes 
fratres  sui   et  universal  sorores  suae,'— and  there  came  to 
Job  all  his  brothers  and  all  his  sisters.      When,  therefore, 
the  brethren  of  Christ  are  spoken  of  in  the  Bible,  the  well 
known  idiom  of  Bible  language  implies  thereby  'kinsfolk  ' 
— relatives — and  not  the  brothers  of  Christ  as  in  our  lan- 
guage, and  such  has  always  been  thus  taught  in  all  ages 
from  Hegessippus,  Origen,  and  other  Christian   writers  of 


I40  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

the  very  first  days  of  Christianity  down  to  our  own.  And 
even  of  those  who  are  called  the  brothers  of  Christ,  it  is 
the  Bible  itself  which  shows  us  that  they  were  not  his 
brothers  in  the  English  sense  of  the  word.  For  the  Apos- 
tle James  the  less  is  called  by  pre-eminence  the  brother  of 
the  Lord,  but  is  always  styled  the  son  of  Alpheus  whose 
wife  was  Mary — the  sister  of  Christ's  mother— Matt, 
xxvii.,  Mark  xv.  That  many  of  Christ's  relatives  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh  believed  in  Him  we  know  for  a  certainty 
from  the  fact  that  Judas,  Thaddeus,  James,  and  others 
were  his  most  devout  disciples.  That  some  of  Christ's 
kinsfolk  may  not  have  believed  in  Him,  counts  for  less 
than  nothing  in  an  argument  against  Christ.  It  can  only 
be  adduced  as  a  proof  of  their  stupidity  or  malice — and 
nothing  else.  All  your  talk,  therefore,  about  the  unbe- 
lieving sons  and  daughters  of  Mary  is  wanting  in  point. 
"  Your  last  argument  against  the  divinity  of  Christ  is 
expressed  in  the  following  words :  '  But,  stranger  still, 
the  probabilities  are  strong  that  even  his  mother,  Mary, 
did  not  believe  in  him.'  You  must  permit  me  to  say  that 
I  believe  that  you  have  here  quoted  from  Viscount  Amber- 
ly's  book.  It  is  his  researches  (!)  and  not  your  own  honest 
study  of  the  question  which  have  made  you  fall  into  such 
a  charge.  For  where  is  the  logical  proof  for  '  the  strong 
probabilities'  of  Mary's  unbelief?  The  only  fact  for 
such  an  assertion  you  base  on  a  scene  related  in  the  life 
of  Christ.  Our  blessed  Lord  was  one  day  preaching  to 
large  crowds.  His  mother  came  and  desired  to  speak  to 
Him.  Is  there  anything  surprising  or  unnatural  in  that  ? 
A  son  might  be  intensely  engaged  in  the  grave  duties  of 
his  official  position,  on  the  bench  or  in  the  Church.  His 
mother,  not  knowing  all  the  circumstances  as  he  does, 
might,  listening  only  to   a  mother's  love,  desire  to  speak 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       141 

to  him  when  it  would  be  inconvenient.  The  mother's 
desire  would  surprise  no  one,  and  the  refusal  of  the  son 
to  interrupt  the  grave  business  of  his  office  to  converse 
with  his  mother,  would  only  be  expected  by  sensible  men. 
Christ  is  preaching,  and  his  mother  comes  and  desires  to 
speak  to  him — and  therefore  '  the  probabilities  are  strong 
that  even  his  mother,  Mary,  did  not  believe  in  him  !  !  ! 
Hence  I  say  that  just  here  you  must  be  quoting  again 
from  Viscount  Amberly's  book ;  it  is  so  like  his  style. 
Your  own  honorable  mind,  accustomed  to  reasoning, 
would  never  have  led  you  into  such  conclusions.  More- 
over, it  is  so  in  keeping  with  the  noble  Viscount  to  make 
such  brazen  assertions  while  coolly  ignoring  the  over- 
whelming proofs  of  just  the  reverse.  For  the  proofs  of 
Mary's  faith  are  beyond  all  cavil.  In  chap,  i.,  Luke,  we 
are  told  that  the  archangel  Gabriel  appeared  to  the  ever 
blessed  Mary.  This  great  archangel  tells  her  that  she  is 
to  conceive  in  a  most  miraculous  manner.  She,  a  virgin 
who  never  '  knew  man,'  was  to  bring  forth  a  son.  This 
son  was  to  be  the  long-expected  Messiah,  the  '  Emmanuel,' 
who,  as  she  knew,  is  so  often  called  by  the  prophets  to  be 
divine ;  and  who,  Gabriel  himself  tells  her,  '  will  be  called 
the  son  of  the  Most  High,' — and  'who  will  reign  for  ever 
in  the  house  of  Jacob.'  She  certainly  could  not  doubt  an 
angel's  word — and  therefore  when  she  saw  in  her  miracu- 
lous  pregnancy  the  fulfilment  of  the  angelic  promise,  she 
had  the  most  absolute  proof  that  she  was  the  favored 
mother  of  the  Messiah  God.  St.  Elizabeth,  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  Blessed  Mary's  visit,  exclaimed  under  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost,  '  Whence  is  this  to  me  that  the 
mother  of  my  Lord  should  come  to  me  ?  '  Here  though  her 
son  is  called  divine  by  one  who  speaks  under  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Mary  does  not   decline  the  high  title 


1 42  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

given  her,  but  on  the  contrary,  in  that  sublime  canticle,  the 
Magnificat,  confesses  her  faith,  and  gives  thanks  to  God 
for  the  great  things  which  He  has  done  for  her.  She  also 
makes  the  astounding  prophecy,  whose  boldness  is  only 
surpassed  by  its  wonderful  fulfilment  :  '  For  behold  from 
henceforth  all  generations  shall  call  me  blessed.'  For 
truly  in  all  generations  the  modest  Virgin  of  insignificant 
Galilee  has  been  blessed  by  poets,  orators,  sculptors, 
artists,  and  peoples  of  every  tongue,  as  never  woman  had 
been  praised. 

"  Thus  from  the  very  first  moments  of  the  Incarnation 
there  is  every  proof  that  the  Blessed  Mary  believed  in 
Him.  The  apparition  of  the  angels  at  His  birth,  the  visit 
of  the  Magi  who  prostrated  themselves  and  adored  Him, 
the  great  things  which  the  holy  old  man  Simeon  and 
Anna  said  of  him  in  the  Temple,  would  alone  have  been 
sufficient  to  make  her  believe  that  her  son  was  God. 

"  In  speaking  of  Mary's  presence  at  the  foot  of  Christ's 
gibbet,  you  say :  '  Her  presence  on  such  an  occasion  was 
natural,  without  its  being  necessary  to  suppose  her  a  believer 
in  the  extraordinary  views  now  held  of  her  son.'  I  confess 
that  I  am  astounded  to  see  that  you  look  upon  the  pres- 
ence of  Mary  at  the  foot  of  the  bloody  cross  as  something 
very  '  natural'  I  have  read  something  of  history  ;  but  I 
must  avow  that  in  all  the  history  of  modern  Europe  and 
America,  I  have  never  yet  met  a  case  where  a  mother 
voluntarily  stood  on  the  gibbet  while  her  son  was  put  to 
the  cruel  and  bloody  death.  'T  is  true  history  is  full  of 
heartrending  farewell  scenes  between  the  victim  and  his 
relations — but  even  these  did  not  take  place  at  the  scaf- 
fold itself.  Perhaps  Viscount  Amberly  can  get  up  some 
for  the  occasion.  Strange,  if  the  presence  of  the  mother 
at  the  bloody  gibbet  was  but  '  natural,'  history  cannot  pro- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       I43 

duce  other  examples.  If  you  would  put  the  question  to 
a  mother,  would  she  stand  at  the  gibbet  of  her  son — it 
would  be  but  natural  for  her  to  reply  that  it  is  hard 
enough  for  a  woman's  tender  heart  to  witness  the  execu- 
tion  of  any  criminal,  but  from  the  gibbet  on  which  is 
hanging  the  bloody  body  of  her  only  son,  it  would  be  but 
natural  for  the  tender,  dear  mother  to  remain  away.  The 
presence,  therefore,  of  the  Blessed  Mary  at  the  fearful 
execution  of  her  son,  while  not  a  conclusive  proof  of  her 
belief  in  Him — for  we  don't  need  it  in  the  abundance  of 
other  proof, — offers  a  strong  probability  that  she,  with 
woman's  fidelity,  still  clung  to  Hirmas  God,  when  men  had 
crucified  Him  for  asserting  it. 

"  You  conclude  your  attack  on  the  divinity  of  Christ 
with  the  following  remarks  :  '  And  this  argument  is  based 
entirely  on  the  internal  evidence  of  the  Gospels  without 
reference  aliunde,  and  without  appealing  to  natural  rea- 
son which  would  seem  to  abhor  the  idea  that  the  great 
Almighty  God,  Ruler  of  the  entire  Universe,  could  or 
would  engender  a  physical  son  to  be  borne  and  born,  in  a 
purely  human  way,  by  and  of  a  woman,  His  own  handi- 
work, upon  this  speck  of  matter  which  we  call  earth.'  I 
have  said  before,  it  is  a  pity  that  you  do  not  seek  for 
knowledge  from  purer  sources.  This  definition  of  the 
Incarnation  you  have,  I  presume,  drawn  from  such  worth- 
less authors  as  Viscount  Amberly  ;  for  no  Christian  writer 
on  Catholic  theology  ever  got  off  such  nonsense.  Your 
definition  of  faith  was  ludicrous  enough  [see  Prop.  I.  (a), 
note],  but  the  above  definition  of  the  Incarnation  goes 
infinitely  beyond  it  for  absurdity — is  what  might  be 
called  the  sublimely  absurd  !  You  wish  to  know  how  could 
God  engender  '  a  physical  son  ' — born  in  a  purely  human 
way  '  of  a  woman.'     A  physical  son,  i.  e.,  a  son  having  a 


144  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

mere  human  body  and  soul,  and  engendered  by  God  '  in 
a  purely  human  way,  by  and  of  a  woman  ' — is  merely  a  hor- 
rible caricature  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  A  son, 
to  be  the  son  of  his  father,  must  have  the  same  nature  as 
his  father.  When  therefore  you  talk  of  God,  the  Infinite 
Spirit,  ENGENDERING  '  a  physical  son,  of  a  woman,'  you  are 
guilty  of  a  '  contradictio  in  terminis.'  We  have  not  the 
right  to  exact  a  profound  knowledge  of  theology  in 
laymen — though  many  illustrious  names  of  laymen  both 
living  and  dead  could  be  mentioned  who  acquired  a  vast 
and  deep  knowledge  of  that  sublimest  of  sciences.  But 
natural  reason  would  seem  to  abhor  the  idea  that  a  gen- 
tleman, loving  books  and  study,  should  entertain  such 
utter  misconception  of  the  Incarnation — the  very  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  all  Christianity. 

"  The  testimony  of  the  Holy  Gospels  shows  beyond  all 
doubt  that  Christ  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  I  have 
shown  that  such  was  the  belief  of  Christ's  contemporaries, 
the  apostles  and  disciples.  Now  I  might  show  how  their 
successors  in  age  after  age  down  to  our  own  time  have 
believed  the  same.  For  we  have  the  writings  of  a  Cle- 
ment, a  Justin,  an  Origen,  a  Tertullian,  an  Irenaeus,  and 
other  writers  who  lived  in  the  very  first  ages  of  Christian- 
ity. I  might  prove  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  from  the 
exact  fulfilment  of  His  prophecies.  I  might  establish  it  from 
the  foundation  and  perpetuity  of  His  wonderful  works — 
but  to  do  all  this  would  require  me  to  write  a  volume. 
And,  moreover,  our  controversy  has  been  upon  the  fact 
—Did  Christ  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God  ?— Do  the 
Scriptures  represent  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  ?" 

Such  is  the  reply  and  argument  of  the  Bishop.  I  have 
given   it   in  full,  omitting  nothing  for  the  reason  already 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 45 

stated,  even  where  the  argument  seems  based  on  a  mis- 
conception of  my  position,  which  is  the  case  in  several 
instances. 

I  now  give  my  answer  to  his  argument,  departing  very 
slightly  from  the  reply  sent  to  him,  and  which  has  re- 
mained unanswered. 

The  Bishop  is,  perhaps  not  unnaturally,  quite  indignant 
with  Viscount  Amberly  for  saying  that  he  saw  "  no  proof 
of  the  peculiar  sorrow  ascribed  to  him  [Jesus]  on  the 
strength  of  a  prophecy,"  and  to  show  that  the  Viscount  is 
wrong,  he  cites  all  the  sufferings  and  indignities  under- 
gone by  Jesus  towards  the  last.  But  the  Viscount  spoke 
of  his  whole  career,  including  the  last.  He  thinks,  appar- 
ently (and  I  see  nothing  in  the  facts  cited  by  the  Bishop 
to  show  the  contrary),  that  Jesus  suffered  in  no  extra- 
ordinary way  during  his  life  until  his  arrest  ;  and  though 
he  suffered  much  then,  it  does  not  appear  that  he  suffered 
more  than  any  one  else  ever  had,  and  if  others  had  suffered 
as  much  as,  not  to  say  more  than,  he  had,  he  could  not 
properly  be  considered  as  deserving  the  u  touching  title  " 
of  the  "  man  of  sorrows  "  :  — that  is,  he  had  no  peculiar  and 
especial  claim  to  it.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that,  before  as  well  as  since  Jesus,  men  have 
suffered  as  much  as  he  did,  mentally  and  physically,  and 
equally  unjustly,  and  without  having  the  consciousness 
which  (on  the  Church's  theory)  he  must  have  had,  that  he 
was  God,  and  his  sufferings  were  but  the  necessary  details 
of  his  own  plan  to  save  mankind. 

The  sufferings  of  Jesus  are  trivial  as  compared  with  the 
tortures  inflicted  by  the  Holy  Inquisition,  and  I  hardly 
think  that  the  Christians  of  that  age,  when  the  Church  was 
supreme,  cruel  as  they  were,  were  more  merciless,  or  more 


I46  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

ingenious  in  devising  tortures,  than  their  predecessors,  the 
religious  fanatics  of  the  East.  So  I  think  that  the  Vis- 
count, admitting  all  the  suffering  which  the  Bishop  claims 
that  Jesus  underwent,  was  fully  justified  in  concluding 
that  he  had  not  suffered  more  than  any  other,  and  was 
therefore,  so  far  as  he  could  see,  not  entitled  to  any  title 
which  implied  that  he  had  ;  and  I  think  that  all  who  are 
free  from  what  the  Viscount  calls  "  this  exaggeration  of 
reverence,"  will  agree  with  him.  It  is  the  sacred  halo 
which  has  been  thrown  around  him  by  "  after  ages  "  which 
dazzles  the  eyes  of  man,  and  prevents  so  many  from  see- 
ing what,  when  that  halo  is  once  removed,  is  so  very 
obvious. 

The  Bishop  says  :  "  The  Viscount  smears  over  him 
some  balderdash  about  '  melancholy  of  a  sympathetic 
heart.'  But  Viscount  Amberly  would  lower  Christ  still 
more.  He  dares  assert  that  Christ  died  with  '  a  shaken 
faith — the  agonies  of  unaccomplished  purposes.'  Christ 
naked  to  the  gaze  of  an  indecent  mob,  is  not  so  much 
humiliated  as  these  words  would  make  him." 

What  means  the  cry  from  the  cross,  "  My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ?" 

To  the  ordinary  mind,  construing  the  sentence  as  if  it 
were  spoken  by  a  mere  man  suffering  for  his  faith — a 
martyr  to  what  he  believed  to  be  his  duty, — it  would  cer- 
tainly seem  to  imply  that  he  believed  himself  to  be  for- 
saken by  God,  or  why  ask  God  such  a  question  ?  Was 
that  a  time  for  trifling  ?  If  he  was  forsaken  by  his  God, 
then  must  his  faith  have  been  shaken,  for  the  question 
shows  that  he  did  not  expect  to  be  forsaken,  and  that  his 
expectation — his  faith — was  disappointed.  If  his  being 
allowed  to  be  sacrificed  was  the  reason — and  no  other 
appears  to  be  even  suggested — why  he  thought  he  was 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.       1 47 

forsaken  by  his  God,  then  it  is  clear  that  it  was  his  purpose 
to  have  lived  longer,  and  that  he  did  not  consider  his 
mission  ended,  and  he  must  necessarily  have  considered 
his  purposes  unaccomplished.  This  is,  of  course,  on  the 
theory  that  Jesus  was  but  man.  If  he  was  man,  and  man 
only,  the  above  conclusions  are  irresistible.  The  only 
answer  to  it,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  theory  of  the  Incar- 
nation. The  Bishop's  texts  do  not  help  the  matter. 
Whatever  may  have  been  thought  and  said  before  that 
time — whether  by  Jesus,  or  by  others,  and  attributed  to 
him, — in  that  supreme  moment,  when  all  disguise  or  de- 
ception (if  any  ever  existed)  would  be  thrown  aside,  from 
the  very  depths  of  the  man's  soul  comes  the  bitter,  de- 
spairing cry  that  tells  the  whole  story  in  a  manner  beyond 
the  power  of  metaphysics  or  sophistry  to  explain  away. 

And  even  the  Incarnation,  if  that  horrible  theory  were 
true,  would  be  of  little  or  no  help.  If  Jesus  were  God,  his 
human  mind,  his  human  soul,  would  have  been  aware  of 
the  fact, — for  he  certainly  was  intelligent,  and  if  he  did 
not  believe  in  himself  how  can  we  be  expected  to  believe 
in  him  ;  and  as  the  soul  was  immortal  and  sinless,  the 
God-head  eternal,  deathless,  and  omnipresent,  even  the 
human  part  of  Jesus  could  not  have  been  guilty  of  the 
absurdity  of  asking  such  a  question  at  such  a  time, — of 
considering  himself  as  man  forsaken  by  himself  as  God 
because  his  own  previously  arranged  plan  was  being  con- 
summated as  he  wished  it  to  be. 

But  to  proceed  :  the  Bishop  says  that  Jesus'  mission 
was  not  a  failure  ;  so  does  the  Viscount.  He  says  Jesus  had 
done  more  than  he  himself  knew  or  intended  ;  here  they 
diverge.  The  Bishop  says,  "  that  mission  was  to  teach 
the  world,"  and  gives  a  picture  of  the  outside  world,  and 
the  effect  of  Jesus'  teachings  on  it.     I  think  the  Bishop, 


148  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

of  course,  unintentionally,  very  seriously  exaggerates  both 
the  condition  of  the  outside  world,  and  the  beneficial 
effect  to  it  of  Jesus'  teachings  (as  taught  by  the  Church). 
The  effect  of  the  Church's  teachings,  which  I  suppose  the 
Bishop  and  all  other  good  Churchmen  would  consider  the 
teachings  of  Jesus,  has  already  been  fully  considered  in 
discussing  Prop.  I.,  but  we  may  now  consider  the  con- 
dition of  the  outside  world  at  the  time  of  Jesus'  coming, 
in  connection  with  the  Bishop's  assertion  that  "  Christ 
taught  as  no  one  had  ever  taught.  He  had  preached  those 
beautiful  truths  which  had  made  paganism  flee  "  :  this 
being  urged  as  one  of  the  proofs  of  his  Godhood. 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  the  Bishop  did  not 
specify  some  particular  moral  truth  which  Jesus  taught, 
and  which  Had  not  been  taught  before  his  coming,  for 
I  have  been  led  to  believe  that  he  taught  none  such. 
And  it  would  have  been  edifying,  to  say  the  least,  to  have 
learned  what  were  the  "  beautiful  truths  "  which  "  made 
paganism  flee."  Certainly  not  his  ethics,  for  most  of 
them,  as  beautiful  as  they  really  are,  were  old  before  he 
was  born,  and  all,  I  think,  had  been  taught  before  he 
came. 

It  will  not  do  to  compare  the  best  of  Christians  with 
the  worst  of  pagans ;  it  would  not  be  fair.  There  were 
many  pagans  false  to  the  teachings  of  their  religion,  as 
there  were,  and  still  are,  many  Christians  false  to  the 
moral  teachings  of  Jesus ;  and  the  one  system  is  no  more 
to  be  judged  by  those  who  do  not  keep  its  command- 
ments than  is  the  other.  We  should  compare  the  worst 
with  the  worst  and  the  best  with  the  best. 

I  believe  the  greatest  moral  teachings  of  Jesus  were : 
"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart, 
and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind.     This  is  the 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 49 

first  and  great  commandment.  And  the  second  is  like 
unto  it.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  On 
these  two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the 
prophets." — Matt,  xxii.,  37-40. 

This  should  be,  as  Jesus  evidently  intended  it,  the 
whole  of  religion,  for  he  says  :  "  On  these  two  command- 
ments hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets."  All  that 
could  be  taught  by  law-givers  and  prophets  is  summed  up 
in  that  sublime  utterance,  and  if  this  were  all  of  Chris- 
tianity it  would  be  a  grand  religion  indeed  ;  and  there 
would  have  been  no  need  of  a  Church  to  act  as  deposi- 
tory of  all  those  "  sacred  truths  "  which  are  either  cov- 
ered by  these  two  commandments  or  useless ;  and, 
consequently,  no  necessity  for  pious  frauds  and  forgeries 
to  convince  its  friends,  or  useless  wars  and  cruel  tortures 
to  punish  its  enemies,  that  the  Church  might  flourish,  and 
its  hosts  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  be  sustained. 
And  though  this  would  have  been  very  bad  for  the  "  cor- 
porate teaching  body,"  humanity  would  have  been  greatly 
the  gainer. 

Then  we  have  the  "  Golden  Rule  "  :  "As  ye  would  that 
men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  also  to  them  likewise." — Luke 
vi.,  31.  This  is,  of  course,  included  in  the  two  great 
commandments,  but  it  is  so  beautiful  an  illustration  of  it 
that  I  think  the  world  is  better  off  for  its  having  been 
said. 

But  while  these  sayings  are,  as  I  believe,  the  embodi- 
ment of  all  true  religion,  and  are  probably  the  grandest 
ethical  conceptions  of  the  human  mind  in  any  age,  they 
were  not  new.  The  same  ideas  seem  to  have  prevailed 
among  the  heathen,  or  pagans,  and  consequently  it  was 
not  these  teachings  which  "  made  paganism  flee."  If 
paganism  fled  I  should  rather  attribute  its  flight  to  the 


150  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

saying  ascribed  to  Jesus,  "  I  came  not  to  send  peace,  but 
a  sword"  (Matt,  x.,  34),  a  singular  utterance  to  be  as- 
cribed to  the  "  Prince  of  Peace,"  and  "  Lamb  of  God  who 
taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world." 

Jesus  also  taught  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  the 
doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments  in  another 
life,  neither  of  which  seems  to  have  been  known  to  Moses. 
These  also  were  pagan  doctrines. 

I  now  proceed,  still  discussing  the  second  part  of  my 
proposition,  and  the  Bishop's  reply  to  it,  to  inquire  into 
what  the  pagans  really  thought,  that  we  may  see  if  I  am 
correct  in  saying  that  none  of  these  doctrines,  above  set 
forth,  were  originally  taught  by  Jesus,  and  if  the  Bishop 
is  right  in  saying  that  Jesus  "  taught  as  no  one  had  ever 
taught,"  and  that  the  "  beautiful  truths  "  tau'ght  by  him 
"  made  paganism  flee." 

As  this  is  a  matter  of  history  in  which  we  are  neces- 
sarily dependent  upon  others,  I  must  rely  upon  the  facts 
as  I  glean  them  from  those  who  are  recognized  as  author- 
ities. I  quote  (p.  39)  from  a  little  pamphlet  by  J.  M.  Peebles, 
entitled  Jesus:  Myth,  Man,  or  God,  and  I  quote  him 
principally  for  the  authorities  which  he  cites,  and  to  many 
of  which  I  have  not  had  access. 

"Those  intuitive  truths  and  moral  precepts  that  bubbled,  up  from 
the  sensitive  soul,  and  dropped  like  pearls  from  the  inspired  lips,  of 
Jesus,  were  the  frequent  enunciations  of  that  common  consciousness  which 
relates  to  the  universal  Religions  of  the  races.  The  immortality  of  the  soul, 
taught  in  the  Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead  and  the  Brahminical  Vedas,  shone 
with  increased  brightness  in  the  matchless  sayings  of  Pythagoras,  and  Soc- 
rates, Thales,  Zeno,  Plato,  Anaximenes,  Empedocles,  Persian  Magi  and 
Indian  Sages,  long  before  the  birth  of  the  Asian  Teacher  Jesus.  This  will 
not  be  denied.  On  the  other  hand,  if  there  is  a  doleful  book  in  existence 
relating  to  immortality  and  the  future  life,  it  is  the  Old  Testament,  a  part  of 
the  Christian  Scriptures. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       151 

"  Bishop  Warburton,  and  other  candid  Church  writers,  admit  the  absence 
of  all  allusion  to  a  future  life  in  the  Mosaic  system.  The  Book  of  Job  is  a 
Drama.  The  oft  quoted  passage,  '  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth,'  etc., 
gives  not  a  hint  even  of  a  future  conscious  existence.  Rightly  translated 
from  the  Septuagint  it  reads  thus  :  '  For  I  know  that  he  is  eternal  who  is 
about  to  deliver  me  on  earth,  to  restore  this  skin  of  mine  which  endures 
these  things  ;  for  by  the  Lord  these  things  have  been  done  to  me,  of  which 
I  am  conscious,  to  myself,  which  mine  own  eye  hath  seen,  and  not  another, 
but  all  was  fulfilled  in  my  own  bosom.'  (Weymes,  Job  and  His  Times, 
chap,  xiii.) 

"  Consider  the  following  Bible  texts  : 

"  '  The  dead  praise  not  the  Lord.'     David  (Ps.  cxv.,  17). 

"  4  They  sleep  with  their  fathers.'     Moses  (Deut.  xxxi.,  16). 

"  ;  Whose  end  is  destruction.'     Paul  (Phil,  iii.,  19). 

"'There  is  no  work  nor  device  nor  knowledge  in  the  grave.'  (Eccl. 
ix.,  10.) 

"  '  For  to  him  that  is  joined  to  all  the  living  there  is  hope  ;  for  a  living 
dog  is  better  than  a  dead  lion.  The  dead  know  not  anything,  neither  have 
they  any  more  a  reward,  for  the  memory  of  them  is  forgotten.  Also  their 
love  and  their  hatred  is  now  perished.'     (Eccl.  ix.,  4-6.) 

"Isaiah  evinces  an  equal  destitution  of  faith  in  a  future  life  and  resurrec- 
tion when  he  says  :  '  They  are  dead|  they  shall  not  live  ;  they  are  deceased, 
they  shall  not  rise.'     (Isa.  xxvi.,  14.) 

"  '  As  the  cloud  is  consumed  and  vanisheth  away,  so  he  that  goeth  down 
to  the  grave  shall  come  up  no  more.'     (Job  vii.,  9.) 

' '  Job  expresses  his  lack  in  future  hope  by  such  disconsolate  expressions  as  : 
'  If  I  wait,  the  grave  is  mine  house,  I  have  made  my  bed  in  darkness.  I  have 
said  to  corruption,  Thou  art  my  father  ;  to  the  worm,  Thou  art  my  mother 
and  my  sister,  and  where  is  now  my  hope  ?  As  for  my  hope,  who  shall  see 
it  ?  '  (Job  xvii.,  13-15.)  He  inquires  :  '  If  a  man  die,  shall  he  live  again  ? 
Man  giveth  up  the  Ghost,  and  where  is  he  ?  '     (Job  xiv.,  10-14.) 

"  '  They  shall  be  as  though  they  had  not  been.'     (Obadiah  16.) 

"  '  For  that  which  befalleth  the  sons  of  men  befalleth  the  beasts  ;  even 
one  thing  befalleth  them  ;  as  the  one  dieth,  so  dieth  the  other, — yea,  they 
have  all  one  breath,  so  that  a  man  hath  no  pre-eminence  above  a  beast ;  all 
go  into  one  place  ;  all  are  of  the  dust,  and  all  turn  to  dust  again.'  (Eccl. 
iii.,  19,  20.)" 

It  may  be  claimed  that  these  Biblical  writers  were 
speaking  of  the  body  alone,  not  of  the  soul.     I  think  that 


152  AN  INQUfRY  INTO 

is  true  ;  for  they  do  not  appear  to  have  ever  heard  of  a 
soul.  Examine  the  five  books  ascribed  to  Moses,  and  I 
do  not  think  a  single  instance  can  be  found  where  either 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  or  the  doctrine  of  future 
rewards  and  punishments  can  be  fairly  said  to  be  taught. 
All  the  rewards  and  punishments  promised  or  threatened 
by  Moses  are,  so  far  as  I  have  seen,  temporal,  of  this 
world.  The  Old  Testament  is  the  foundation  on  which  is 
built  the  New,  and  is,  so  to  speak,  the  basement  story  of 
the  Church.  It  is  claimed  to  be  the  only  revelation  made 
by  God  to  man  prior  to  the  coming  of  Jesus.  Jesus 
taught  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  the  doctrine  of 
future  rewards  and  punishments.  So  did  the  pagans. 
How  comes  it  that  God  concealed,  or  permitted  Moses  to 
conceal,  these  wonderful  and  all-important  facts  from  His 
chosen  people,  and  yet  permitted  them  to  be  known  to 
the  pagans,  His  so-called  enemies. 

The  Bishop  has  failed  to  answer  this  question.  I  will 
be  grateful  to  any  one  who  will. 

Now  for  the  pagans.  I  quote  again  from  Dr.  Peebles, 
p.  41. 

In  referring  to  Max  Miiller's  third  lecture  before  the 
Royal  Institution  upon  the  "  Science  of  Religion,"  he 
says  Miiller  placed  them  in  order  of  time  as  "  The 
Turanian,  the  Aryan,  the  Semitic." 

"  These  primitive  religions  were  ultimately  reflected  in  the  Sacred  Books 
of  the  Chinese,  Hindoos,  and  Hebrews.  .  .  .  They  (the  Turanians) 
also  '  reverenced  their  ancestors,  believed  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
and  in  blissful  reunions  in  heaven  with  those  they  had  known  upon  earth.' 
Herodotus  thinks  the  Egyptians  '  were  the  first  who  distinctly  taught  that 
the  soul  of  man  is  immortal.'  That  they  believed  in  future  rewards  and 
punishments  is  testified  by  the  paintings  on  the  tombs,  in  which  Osiris  sits 
as  judge,  looking  intently  upon  the  balances  weighing  the  '  quick  and  the 


t 
THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 53 

dead.'  Diogenes  Laertius  affirms  that  Thales  taught  that  'Divinity  was 
infinite  and  the  souls  of  men  immortal.'  Pythagoras,  living  in  the  sixth 
century  before  the  modern  era,  believed  in  the  divine  existence  and  the  im- 
mortality of  the  human  soul.  To  this  end  the  classical  Millman  declares  that 
many  of  our  Christian  writers  who  repudiate  this  '  Heathen  Philosopher  ' 
repeat  his  '  golden  sentences '  as  if  they  were  '  originally  uttered  by  the  more 
learned  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  not  knowing  that  those  fathers  enriched 
themselves  at  the  expense  of  pagan  thought.' 

"Zoroaster,  after  speaking  of  Ormuzd,  that  God  who  is  'indestructible, 
eternal,  indivisible,  the  celestial,  and  the  dispenser  of  all-good,'  adds,  '  The 
soul,  being  a  bright  fire,  by  the  power  of  the  Father  remains  immortal,  and 
is  mistress  of  life.'     (Euseb.,  Prccp.  Evan.,  lib.  i.,  10.) 

"  Crito,  asking  Socrates,  another  '  Pagan  Philosopher,'  how  he  would  be 
buried,  the  heaven-inspired  philosopher  smilingly  answered  :  '  As  you 
please,  if  only  you  can  catch  me — if  I  do  not  escape  from  you.'  He  further 
said  :  '  I  cannot  persuade  Crito,  my  friends,  that  I  am  that  Socrates  who  is 
now  conversing  with  you,  and  who  methodizes  each  part  of  the  discourse  ; 
but  he  thinks  I  am  he  whom  he  will  shortly  behold  dead,  and  asks  how  he 
should  bury  me.  But  that  which  I  sometime  since  argued  at  length,  that 
when  I  have  drunk  the  poison  I  shall  no  longer  remain  with  you,  but  shall 
depart  to  some  happy  state  of  the  blessed,  this  I  seem  to  have  argued  to  him 
in  vain  ;  though  I  meant  at  the  same  time  to  comfort  both  you  and  myself.' 
After  arguing  that  the  soul,  being  invisible,  is  not  separable  into  parts,  but 
goes  into  the  presence,  at  death,  of  a  good  and  wise  God,  he  asks,  '  Does 
not  the  soul  then,  when  in  this  state,  depart  to  that  which  resembles  itself, 
the  invisible,  the  divine,  immortal,  and  wise  ?  And  on  its  arrival  there,  is 
not  its  lot  to  be  happy,  free  from  error,  ignorance,  fears,  wild  passions,  and 
all  the  other  evils  to  which  human  nature  is  subject,  and,  as  is  said  of  the 
initiated,  does  it  not  in  truth  pass  the  rest  of  its  time  with  the  Gods  ?  When, 
therefore,  death  approaches  a  man,  the  mortal  part  of  him,  as  it  appears, 
dies,  but  the  immortal  part  departs  safe  and  uncorrupted,  having  withdrawn 
itself  from  death.' 

"  '  The  soul,  therefore,'  he  said,  '  Cebes,  is  most  certainly  immortal  and 
imperishable.' 

"  Cicero,  born  106  B.C.,  teaches  in  one  of  his  books,  written  just  after  his 
daughter's  death,  these  beautiful  truths  : 

"  '  The  origin  of  the  soul  of  man  is  not  to  be  found  upon  earth,  for  there 
is  nothing  in  the  soul  of  a  mixed  or  carnate  nature,  or  that  has  any  appear- 
ance of  being  made  out  of  the  earth.  The  powers  of  memory,  understanding, 
and  thought,  imply  that  these  principles  must  have  been  derived  from  God. 
.     .     .     Do  not  consider  yourself,  but  your  body,  to  be  mortal.     For  you 


!54  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

are  not  the  being  which  this  corporeal  figure  evinces  ;  but  the  mind  of  every 
man  is  the  man,  and  not  that  form  which  may  be  delineated  with  a  finger. 
Know,  therefore,  that  you  are  a  divine  person.  Since  it  is  the  divinity  that 
has  consciousness,  sensation,  memory,  and  foresight — that  governs,  regu- 
lates, and  moves  the  body  over  which  it  has  been  appointed,  just  as  the  Su- 
preme Deity  rules  this  world  ;  and,  in  like  manner,  as  an  Eternal  God  guides 
this  world,  which  in  some  respect  is  perishable,  so  an  Eternal  spirit  animates 
your  frail  body.  The  good  man  does  not  die,  but  departs,  as  the  inextin- 
guishable and  immortal  nature  of  his  purified  soul  demonstrates,  which  goes 
from  him  into  heaven,  without  that  dissolution  or  corruption  which  death 
appears  to  induce.'     (Tusciil.  Qncest.,  lib.  I.) 

"  Christian  writers  who  assert  that  these  doctrines  of  the  divine  existence', 
the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  the  reward  of  virtue  were  derived  from  the 
'  chosen  people  ' — the  Jews — manifest  an  ignorance  only  excelled  by  their 
impudence.  The  Father-hood  of  God,  enriching  the  Rig-Veda  and  the 
Talmud,  was  taught  also  by  Homer,  Hesiod,  Philo,  Horace,  Seneca,  Epic- 
tetus,  in  the  Socrates  of  Xenophon,  the  Song  of  Cleanthes,  and  in  the  Hymn 
of  Aratus,  quoted  by  Paul  in  his  appeal  to  the  Athenians.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Collier  {Lee,  xii.,  p.  499)  makes  Pythagoras  to  say  :  'God  is  neither  the 
object  of  sense,  nor  subject  to  passion,  but  .  .  .  invisible  and  supremely 
intelligent.  ...  All  beings  receive  their  light  from  Him.  He  is  the 
light  of  Heaven— the  Father  of  all.'  The  Brotherhood  of  Man,  with  the 
moral  duties  growing  out  of  such  humanitarian  instruction,  was  taught  by 
Diodorus,  Menander,  Zeno,  Epictetus,  Terence,  the  learned  Philo-Judneus, 
and  others,  in  these  words  :  '  All  men  everywhere  belong  to  one  family.' 
'  No  man  is  a  stranger  to  me  providing  he  be  a  good  man,  for  we  have  all 
one  and  the  same  nature.'  '  All  men  are  our  friends  and  fellow-citizens, — 
Greeks  and  barbarians  drink  from  one  and  the  same  cup  of  brotherly  love.' 
'  Will  you  not  bear  with  your  brother?  He  is  born  of  the  same  divine  seed 
that  thou  art.  Wilt  thou  enslave  those  who  are  thy  brothers  by  nature  and 
the  children  of  God  ? '  asks  Epictetus. 

"  Pythagoras,  after  enjoining  trust  in  God,  adds  :  '  Yield  to  mild 
words,  and  to  deeds  that  are  useful.  Do  not  hate  your  friend  for  a  trifling 
fault.  Do  nothing  base,  either  with  another,  or  in  private  ;  and,  most  of 
all,  have  a  respect  for  yourself.  Next  practice  uprightness  both  in  deed  and 
word.  And  accustom  yourself  to  have  a  diet  simple  and  non-luxurious. 
And  guard  against  doing  that  which  begets  envy.  Do  not  expend  beyond 
what  is  reasonable,  like  a  person  ignorant  of  what  is  honorable.  Nor  be 
illiberal.  Moderation  in  all  things  is  best.  And  do  those  things  which  will 
not  injure  you  :  and  calculate  before  the  act  :  nor  receive  sleep  upon  your 
softened  eyes  before  you  have  thrice  gone  over  each  act  of  the  day,  what 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       I  55 

have  I  passed  by  ?  What  have  I  done  ?  What  necessary  act  has  not  been 
done  by  me  ?  and,  beginning  from  the  first,  go  through  them.  And  then, 
if  you  have  acted  improperly,  reproach  yourself ;  but  if  properly,  be  glad. 
So  labor,  so  practice  :  these  precepts  it  is  meet  for  you  to  love.  These  will 
place  you  on  the  footsteps  of  divine  virtue.'     (Greek  Anth.) 

"  No  scholar  at  this  day  of  historic  research  will  assume  the  proposition 
that  Jesus  was  the  first  to  voice  the  '  Golden  Rule.'  It  was  a  common  pro- 
verb among  Chinese,  Syrian,  and  Grecian  thinkers  before  the  dawn  of  the 
Christian  Era.  These  are  the  forms  in  which  it  was  announced  by  Hillel, 
Isocrates,  and  Confucius : 

"  '  Do  not  to  another  what  thou  wouldest  not  he  should  do  to  thee  :  this 
is  the  sum  of  the  law.' 

"  '  Thou  wilt  deserve  to  be  honored  if  thou  doest  not  thyself  what  thou 
blamest  in  others.' 

"  '  What  thou  dost  not  wish  done  to  thyself,  do  not  do  to  others.' 

"  In  the  Rev.  J.  Williams'  work  upon  the  Bards  Druidic  Creed,  treating 
of  the  religion  of  the  Ancient  Britons,  several  hundred  years  before  Christ, 
occur  these  Druid  teachings  : 

"  '  Three  things  evince  what  God  has  done  and  will  do  :  infinite  power, 
infinite  wisdom,  and  infinite  love.' 

"  '  The  three  divine  qualities  of  man  are  liberality,  love,  and  forgiveness 
of  injuries.' 

' '  '  The  three  great  laws  of  man's  actions  are,  what  they  forbid  in  another, 
what  they  require  from  another,  and  what  they  care  not  how  is  done  by 
others.' 

"  Monsignior  Bigandet,  Catholic  Apostolic  Bishop  of  Ava,  in  his  Life  of 
Buddha?  says  :  'It  must  not  be  deemed  rash  to  assert  that  most  of  the 
moral  truths  prescribed  by  the  Gospels  are  to  be  met  with  in  the  Buddhist 
Scriptures,'  while  elsewheres  this  Roman  prelate  writes  :  '  In  the  particulars 
of  the  life  of  Buddha-Guatama,  it  is  impossible  not  to  feel  reminded  of 
many  features  of  our  Saviour's  character  and  course.' 

"  Will  anyone,  assuming  the  superior  title  of  '  Christian  '  .  .  .  specifiy 
one — just  one — '  primal  truth'  that  flashed  upon  the  world  for  the  first  time 
through  the  instrumentality  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Again,  on  p.  46,  occurs  this  quotation  from  the  "  candid 
yet  soundly  orthodox,"  Rev.  J.  B.  Gross  Introduction  to 
HeatJicn  Religion. 

1  The  Life  or  Legend  of  Gatidama,  the  Buddha  of  the  Burmese,  etc.,  by 
the  Rt.  Rev.  P.  Bigandet,  Rangoon,  1866. 


156  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

"  Perhaps  on  no  subject  within  the  ample  reign  of  human  knowledge  have 
so  many  fallacious  ideas  been  propagated  as  upon  that  of  the  gods  and  the 
worship  of  heathen  antiquity.  Nothing  but  a  shameful  ignorance,  a  pitiable 
prejudice,  or  the  contemptible  pride  which  denounces  all  investigations  as  a 
useless  or  a  criminal  labor,  when  it  must  be  feared  that  they  will  result  in 
the  overthrow  of  pre-established  systems  of  faith  or  the  modification  of 
long-cherished  principles  of  science,  can  have  thus  misrepresented  the  theol- 
ogy of  heathenism,  and  distorted — nay,  caricatured — its  forms  of  religious 
worship.  It  is  time  that  posterity  should  raise  its  voice  in  vindication  of 
violated  truth,  and  that  the  present  age  should  learn  to  recognize  in  the 
hoary  past  at  least  a  little  of  that  common-sense  of  which  it  boasts  with  as 
much  self-complacency  as  if  the  prerogative  of  reason  was  the  birth-right 
only  of  modern  times." 

And  Max  Miiller,  perhaps  the  best  living  authority  on 
the  subject,  says  there  were  none  of  the  old  religions 
which  did  not  teach  men  "  to  do  good  and  shun  evil." 

I  have  no  apology  to  make  for  this  long  quotation,  nor 
for  the  others  which  I  have  made,  and  will  yet  make,  in 
the  course  of  this  discussion.  My  facts  must  necessarily 
be  chiefly  at  second-hand,  and  it  is  but  right  to  state  my 
authority  for  them  ;  and  when  I  find  my  ideas  better  ex- 
pressed than  I  can  express  them  myself,  it  would  be  folly 
not  to  quote,  giving  proper  credit  to  him  whose  labors  I 
profit  by,  and  unpardonable  vanity  to  make  excuses  for 
substituting  his  researches  and  language  for  mine. 

Now  was  the  paganism  which  I  have  just  detailed  the 
paganism  which  fled  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  ?  Is  there 
any  important  thing  in  his  ethical  teachings  not  included 
in  those  I  have  cited?  And  further  citations  could  be 
made  almost  ad  libitum.  What  then  were  "  the  beautiful 
teachings"  which  made  "  paganism  flee"?  I  know  of 
none  really  from  Jesus  which  could  have  that  effect  on 
any  one.  But  there  are  many  teachings  of  his  so-called 
followers  well  calculated  to  make  pagans,  or  any  other 
conscience-possessing  people,   flee :  as,  for   instance,  the 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.       I$? 

vindictive  teachings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  car- 
ried out  by  Christians  in  persecutions  for  conscience'  sake. 
The  burning  of  heretics  on  the  plea,  as  said  to  be  stated 
by  Mary  of  England — that  "  as  the  souls  of  heretics  are 
hereafter  to  be  eternally  burning  in  hell,  there  can  be 
nothing  more  proper  than  for  me  to  imitate  the  divine 
vengeance  by  burning  them  on  earth." 

And  why  should  not  Christians  hate  and  burn  and  per- 
secute with  the  example  before  them  of  a  God  who  is 
"angry  every  day"  (Ps.  vii.,  n),  and  who  had  authorized 
His  "  chosen  people  "  to  kill  their  and  His  enemies,  man, 
woman,  and  child,  cattle  and  beasts,  except  such  women 
as  had  not  known  man,  and  to  debauch  those  ;  and  who 
is  supposed  to  have  approved  the  sentiments  of  the  cix. 
Psalm ! 

Or  that  other  "  beautiful  teaching  "  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians as  related  by  Mosheim  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History, 
vol.  i.,  pp.  381,  382,  as  cited  by  Dr.  Peebles,  where  he  admits 
that  early  in  the  fourth  century  it  was  an  almost  universally 
adopted  maxim  "  that  it  was  an  act  of  virtue  to  deceive 
and  lie,  when  by  such  means  the  interests  of  the  Church 
might  be  promoted,"  and  "  that  pious  frauds  were  ap- 
proved of  by  the  Christians  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Hermas."  1  And  the  learned  Blunt  is  candid  enough  to 
admit  that  these  Christian  fathers  justified  their  deception 
and  falsehood  by  these,  and  other  quotations  from  the 
scriptures :  "  O  Lord,  thou  hast  deceived  me,  and  I  was 
deceived  (Jer.  xx.,  7).  "  I  the  Lord  have  deceived  that 
prophet  "  (Ezek.  xiv.,  9).  "  God  shall  send  them  a  strong 
delusion  that  they  should  believe  a  lie  ;  that  they  all 
might  be  damned  "  (2  Thes.  ii.,  11,  12). 

1  The  first  quotation  is  literal.  The  second  I  do  not  find  in  words,  as 
cited,  in  the  edition  of  Mosheim  which  I  have,  but  I  find  the  substance. 


158  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

The  Bishop  admits  that  "  Socrates,  Plato,  Aristotle,  and 
other  great  men  of  antiquity,  shocked  at  the  paganism 
of  their  countrymen,  endeavored  to  teach  the  truth  about 
God,  and  a  pure  morality." 

Then,  if  paganism  did  not  flee  from  their  teachings, 
why  should  it  flee  from  those  of  Jesus,  which,  ethically, 
were  much  the  same  as  their  "  pure  morality  "  ?  And  if 
Jesus'  teaching  these  truths  be  any  evidence  of  his  divin- 
ity, or  inspiration,  why  were  not  these  "  great  men  of 
antiquity  "  also  divine,  or  inspired  ?  Where  and  how  did 
they  learn  the  truths  they  taught,  and  why  may  not  the 
truths  of  Jesus  have  been  discovered  in  the  same  way,  or 
have  been  borrowed,  without  credit,  from  them? 

And  what  are  we  to  think  of  a  God  (or  the  only  God, 
since  while  there  are  three  there  is  but  one)  who  comes 
on  earth  to  save  mankind,  to  teach  them  morality  and 
truth,  and  who  can  convey  no  higher  moral  truths  than 
those  taught  already,  ages  before  he  came,  by  uninspired 
pagan  philosophers  ?  But  the  Bishop  adds  that  their 
truths  were  "all  deeply  alloyed  with  many  grave  mistakes." 
He  does  not  point  out  the  "  grave  mistakes,"  but  I  am 
satisfied  from  my  general  information  on  the  subject,  from 
the  general  tone  of  his  arguments  and  of  the  other  argu- 
ments which  I  have  heard  in  this  connection,  that  such 
mistakes  were  strictly  with  reference  to  what  are  now  the 
dogmatic  teachings  of  the  Church  as  to  Jesus  and  his 
status ;  or,  in  other  words,  their  errors  are  not  in  their 
ethics,  but  in  their  divergence  from  modern  dogmatism. 

Thus  the  Incarnation,  on  which  the  Bishop  lays  great 
stress,  is  a  dogma  which  is  fatal  to  those  who  hear  of,  but 
do  not,  or  cannot,  believe  it.  These  pagan  philosophers 
did  not  teach  that,  certainly  ;  but  then  I  do  not  class  that 
as  a  "  moral  truth,"  nor,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  was  it  ever 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 59 

taught,  or  even  hinted  at,  by  Jesus  ;  and  even  the  sayings 
attributed  to  him  which  might  be  construed  into  an 
endorsement  of  the  theory,  are,  to  put  them  in  their 
strongest  light,  but  a  very  indirect  support.  The  theory 
seems  to  have  been  an  after-thought,  an  invention,  to  har- 
monize the  palpable  contradictions  of  the  New  Testament 
as  to  his  doings  and  sayings  ;  not  an  invention  in  the  sense 
that  it  was  manufactured  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving, 
but  a  theory  invented  to,  and  believed  because  it  was 
thought  it  did,  harmonize  conflicting  statements  both  of 
which  were  accepted  as  equally  true. 

But  even  this  "  teaching"  is  not  new.  It  is  an  old 
doctrine  of   many  Eastern  religions. 

Read  this  quotation  from  the  Bhagavat-Gita,  as  cited  by 
Dr.  Peebles  : 

"Chrishna  of  India  preceded  Jesus  by  hundreds  of  years.  He  was  an 
incarnate  God,  and  he  had  a  favorite  disciple,  Arjuna,  to  whom  he  said  : 
4  Although  I  am  not  in  my  nature  subject  to  birth  or  decay,  and  am  the  Lord 
of  all  created  beings  ;  yet,  having  command  over  my  own  nature,  I  am  made 
evident  by  my  own  powers,  and  as  often  as  there  is  a  decline  of  virtue,  and 
an  insurrection  of  vice  and  injustice  in  the  world,  I  make  myself  evident  ; 
and  thus  I  appear  from  age  to  age  for  the  preservation  of  the  just,  the  de- 
struction of  the  wicked,  and  the  establishment  of  virtue.'  " 

It  is  thought,  from  the  very  great  similarity  between 
Chrishna  and  Christ,  that  Christian  theologians  have  bor- 
rowed much  from  the  former  ;  and  the  similarity  between 
the  Jewish  and  Hindoo  religions  has  given  rise  to  the  sus- 
picion that  the  Jewish  is  derived  from  the  Hindoo.  And 
my  attention  having  been  directed  to  the  book  by  what 
turned  out  to  be  a  rather  inexact  reference,  I  find  in  the 
preface,  p.  v.,  to  the  History  of  Hindost an,  translated  from 
the  Persian  by  Lt.-Col.  Alexander  Dow,  London,  1803,  a 
statement  that  the  Hindoos  report  that  the  son  of  Tura 


l6o  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

apostatized,  and  was  banished  by  his  father  to  the  west, 
and  fixed  his  residence  in  a  country  called  Mohgod,  and 
propagated  the  Jewish  religion  about  4887  years  from  the 
writing  of  the  book.  May  there  not  be  some  connection 
between  the  Rajah  Tura,  whose  son  the  Hindoos  say 
founded  the  Jewish  religion,  and  that  Terah  who  dwelt 
beyond  the  flood,  and  was  the  father  of  Abraham,  and 
served  other  gods  ?     (Joshua  xxiv.  2.) 

There  are  many  reasons  for  believing  that  the  Jewish 
faith  was  borrowed  from  their  surrounding  neighbors,  and 
their  various  taskmasters,  and  that  their  first  conceptions 
of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  a  fact  which  seems  to  have 
been  carefully  concealed  from  them  by  their  own  God, 
was  gained  from  the  Egyptians  (from  whom  they  are  said 
to  have  gotten  their  ceremony  of  circumcision),  though  the 
record  does  not  so  show.  The  ancient  Jews  appear  to 
have  been  a  gross  and  sensual  people,  incapable  of  aesthetic 
refinement  or  metaphysical  culture,  and  this  may  account 
for  the  great  difficulty  they  evidently  had  in  getting  to 
comprehend  and  believe  such  elevated  doctrines  as  their 
conquerors  first,  and  Jesus  later,  tried  to  teach  them. 
And  they  are  the  only  people  with  whom  God  vouch- 
safed to  communicate!  Well  may  Voltaire  have  ex- 
claimed in  his  Catechisme  Chinois  (Dictionnaire  Philoso- 
phiqiie,  portatif,  1765,  p.  115): 

"  Malheur  a.  un  peuple  assez  imbecile  et  assez  barbare  pour  penser  qu'il  y 
a  un  Dieu  pour  sa  seul  province  ;  c'est  un  blaspheme.  Quoi  ?  la  lumiere  du 
soleil  eclaire  tous  les  yeux,  et  la  lumiere  de  Dieu  n'eclairerait  qu'une  petite 
et  chetive  nation  dans  un  coinde  ce  globe  !  quelle  horreur  !  et  quelle  sottise  ! 
La  divinite  parle  au  cceur  de  tous  les  homines,  et  les  liens  de  la  charite  doivent 
les  unir  d'un  bout  de  l'univers  a  l'autre." 

What  a  pity  that  such  a  thought  should  tie  only  noble 
and  not  orthodox. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.      l6l 

The  Bishop  says  that  these  ancient  philosophers  had 
not  "  the  power  to  make  the  multitude  accept  their  teach- 
ings. As  a  modern  writer  has  sarcastically  said  they 
1  could  not  persuade  those  who  lived  in  the  same  street 
with  them.'  " 

Does  not  this  sarcasm  come  with  very  bad  grace  from 
one  who  must  admit  that  Jesus,  with  omnipotent  power  to 
back  him,  could  not  persuade  his  own  relatives,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  rest  of  his  fellow-citizens  in  the  little  village 
of  Nazareth — "  the  ignorant  villagers  of  boorish  Galilee," 
as  the  Bishop  calls  them  ?  Is  not  the  point  of  the  wit  some- 
what blunted  when  we  remember  that  Jesus  was  forced, 
in  his  own  bitter  experience,  to  exclaim:  "A  prophet 
is  not  without  honor  but  in  his  own  country,  and  among 
his  own  kin,  and  in  his  own  house  "  ?  And  do  not  these 
great  heathen  philosophers  deserve  a  little,  just  a  little, 
credit  for  having  thought  out  for  themselves  (for  I  do  not 
suppose  the  Church  will  admit  that  they  were  inspired  of 
God)  and  taught  those  wonderfully  beautiful  truths  which 
are  the  only  redeeming  points  of  Christianity? 

We  have  now  reached  the  Bishop's  reply  to  my  argu- 
ment against  the  divinity  of  Jesus  drawn  from  the  Bible 
itself.  It  will  be  observed  that  he  makes  no  attempt  to 
answer — in  fact,  in  no  way  notices — the  following  points  to 
which  I  specially  called  his  attention  : 

1.  That  the  Bible  of  the  Christian  should  be  studied  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  Bible  of  any  other  race. 

2.  The  two  genealogies  of  Jesus  as  given  by  Matthew 
and  Luke. 

3.  That  though  it  is  distinctly  stated  of  Adam  that  he 
was  the  son  of  God,  we  are  expected  to  take  that 
figuratively,  but  when  the  same  statement  is  made  of 
Jesus,  we  must  take  it  literally. 


1 62  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

4.  The  inability  of  Jesus  to  do  any  "  mighty  works  "  at 
his  own  home  on  account  of  the  unbelief  of  the 
people. 

5.  The  doctrine  of  admissions  and  representations. 
This  is  to  be  regretted.     I  would  have  liked  to  have  his 

views. 

The  Bishop  does  not  fairly  state,  nor  does  he  fairly  meet, 
my  argument  on  the  contradictory  sayings  attributed  to 
Jesus. 

I  began  my  argument  by  saying  "  that  there  are  many, 
very  many  passages  in  the  Bible  which  are  cited  to  prove 
the  opposite  of  "  my  views,  and  stated  my  belief  that  such 
passages  were  "  inserted  in  the  interest  of  the  new  sect 
that  was  struggling  to  attract  the  attention  and  gain  the 
sympathy  of  mankind,"  the  whole  New  Testament  having 
been  written  long  after  the  death  of  Jesus  ;  and  he  meets 
my  argument  by  quoting  these  very  passages  to  convince 
me. 

I  had  thought  my  position  clearly  defined.  I  will  en- 
deavor to  state  it  still  more  distinctly.  The  Bible,  in  its 
present  form,  makes  Jesus,  in  some  portions  of  it,  seem  to 
claim  divinity,  and  divine  honors,  for  himself,  and  such 
portions,  by  themselves,  would  justify  the  position  that 
the  Book  made  him  God  :  but  in  view  of  the  facts  that 
these  portions  do  not  stand  by  themselves,  but  are  con- 
fronted by  other  portions  which  indicate  just  the  contrary, 
and  which  are  the  older  portions  of  the  accounts ;  that 
the  Gospels  were  written  long  after  the  death  of  Christ 
and  his  disciples,  and  the  longer  after  his  death  a  Gospel 
was  written  the  stronger  the  passages  in  favor  of  his 
divinity  became,  as  is  very  apparent  in  John  ;  that  these 
Gospels  were  certainly  not  written  by  any  of  the  disciples, 
especially  not  by  the  men  whose  names  they  bear,  and 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 63 

are,  at  best,  but  a  selected  compilation  of  various  and 
varying  traditions  ;  that  there  have  been,  from  time  to 
time,  various  Gospels  written,  used  for  a  while,  and  then 
rejected,  one  by  one,  until  only  four  now  remain  as  recog- 
nized by  the  Church  as  authentic  ;  that  as  some,  aye,  most 
of  the  Gospels  written  have  been  decided  by  the  Church 
to  be  unauthentic,  it  is  not  unlikely  (unless  the  Church  be 
infallible,  which  is  one  of  the  points  which  we  endeavor 
to  disprove)  that  some  portions,  at  least,  of  the  recognized 
accounts  may  be  inexact ;  that  the  recent  revision  shows 
that  such  is  clearly  the  case  in  many  instances,  thus 
strengthening  the  view  that  it  may  be  incorrect  in  others 
where  the  evidence  of  the  variation  from  truth  was  not 
so  accessible  ;  that  these  variations  were  not  desired,  but 
were  made  because  necessary  to  make  the  translation 
true  ;  that  tradition  is  an  unreliable  foundation  for  history, 
as  it  cannot  well  fail  to  be  warped  by  the  beliefs  and  de- 
sires of  its  custodians  ;  that  in  the  earlier  centuries  there 
were  conflicting  views  as  to  Jesus'  status  which  are  shown 
by  the  records,  while  those  not  recorded  must  have  been 
innumerable  ; — I  have  concluded  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
critically  examining  the  various  accounts  in  their  entirety, 
that  the  texts  supporting  this  claim  of  the  Church  are  not 
genuine.  They  may  be  mistranslations,  misconceptions, 
exaggerations  not  unnatural  to  an  Oriental  people,  or  what 
not.  Not  conveying  the  truth,  I  do  not  believe  that  Jesus 
said  them,  or  authorized  them,  and  I  give  him  the  benefit 
of  the  doubt.  But  even  if  he  had  said  them,  or  author- 
ized them,  upon  the  principle  of  representations  and  ad- 
missions, already  discussed,  they  would  not  be  effective 
evidence  in  the  face  of  the  admissions  to  the  contrary. 

I  do  not  consider  this  matter  further,  for  to  go  into  the 
argument  to  prove  the  assertions  herein  made  as  to  the 


164  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

authenticity  and  date  of  the  Gospels  would  take  more 
time  and  space  than  I  can  well  command,  and  would 
change  the  character  of  these  papers  from  that  of  a  free- 
and-easy,  every-day  matter-of-fact  discussion  to  that  of  a 
rather  stately  argument  whose  necessarily  dry  details 
would  drive  from  it  the  very  persons  whom  I  hope  to 
reach.  There  are  many  books,  however,  which  will  give 
the  information  much  better  than  I  could,  and  I  especially 
refer  to  The  Creed  of  Cliristendom,  by  Wm.  Rathbone 
Greg;  Supernatural  Religion,  published  anonymously,  but 
now  acknowledged  by  Prof.  W.  K.  Clifford,  F.R.S.;  and 
History  of  Christianity  to  the  Year  200,  by  C.  B.  Waite. 

I  had  also  stated  that  I  did  not  care  to  discuss,  at  this 
time,  the  theories  devised  to  explain  and  reconcile  the 
contradictions  and  admissions  which  I  had  cited,  and  he 
launched  the  dogma  of  the  Incarnation  at  me.  I  was 
anxious  to  have  his  reply  to  my  argument  on  admissions 
and  representations  and  their  comparative  value  as  evi- 
dence. I  conclude,  from  his  falling  back  on  the  Incarna- 
tion, a  pure  matter  of  faith,  that  reason  afforded  him  no 
reply.  Indeed,  he  seems  to  admit  the  correctness  of  my 
views  and  the  force  of  my  argument,  and,  practically,  so 
far  as  my  purposes  are  concerned,  to  give  up  the  whole 
question  when  he  says:  "Without  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation,  I  entirely  agree  with  you  that  the  Gospels 
would  represent  Christ  as  saying  of  himself  contradictory 
things."  I  say  that  this  is  giving  up  the  whole  question 
so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  because  it  plainly  and  distinctly 
confesses  that  my  argument  admits  of  but  one  answer — 
the  doctrine,  or  dogma,  of  the  Incarnation,  which  is  just 
what  I  anticipated  ;  and  that  dogma  was  what  I  had  in 
my  mind  when  I  said  I  did  not  care,  at  least  at  that  time, 
to  discuss  the  explanatory  theories  of  the  Church.     And 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 65 

now  I  will  state  more  fully  why  I  have  not  cared  to  dis- 
cuss it.  Of  course  I  was  perfectly  familiar  with  the  doc- 
trine, but  I  could  not  believe  it.  It  is  undoubtedly  what 
the  Bishop  calls  it  "  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  Christianity," 
the  most  important  dogma  of  the  Church,  but  my  mind 
refuses  to  believe  that  God  would  have  come  on  earth  to 
found  a  Church,  and  omit  to  announce  its  cardinal  doctrine, 
its  fundamental  article  of  faith  ;  yet  it  seems  to  have  been 
unknown  to  Jesus. 

I  am  aware  that  the  first  and  third  Gospels  contain  cer- 
tain statements  as  to  the  conception  of  Jesus  by  Mary, 
though  the  statements  by  no  means  agree  ;  but  even  there 
it  is  not  intimated  that  he  ever  heard  of  the  stories. 

According  to  Matthew,  Joseph  being  espoused  to  Mary 
found  her  to  be  with  child.  Not  liking  that,  but  being  a 
just  man,  he  was  disposed  to  put  her  away  privily.  But 
he  had  a  dream,  and  was  informed  by  an  angel,  while  he 
slept,  that  Mary  was  with  child  by  the  Holy  Ghost  alone. 

According  to  Luke,  the  angel  appeared  to  Mary,  and 
not  in  a  dream,  and  before  she  had  conceived,  and  told 
her  what  was  to  come  to  pass.  No  notice,  according  to 
this  account,  seems  to  have  been  given  to  Joseph,  who 
apparently  thought  it  was  all  right. 

The  second  and  fourth  Gospels  say  nothing  on  the  sub- 
ject. As  it  was  a  matter  of  such  vital  importance,  it  seems 
strange  that  Mark  and  John  should  not  also  have  at  least 
mentioned  it,  even  if  they  did  not  enter  into  details ;  for, 
since  it  is  frequently  urged  that  the  discrepancies  of  the 
Gospels  are  valuable  as  showing  the  absence  of  collusion, 
they  probably  did  not  know  that  Matthew  and  Luke  had 
told  the  story,  even  in  such  contradictory  terms. 

Now  when  I  reflect  that  the  entire  evidence  to  estab- 
lish  this   stupendous  miracle  is  a  dream  of  the  husband 


1 66  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

after  he  had  discovered  his  wife's  condition,  according  to 
Matthew  ;  or  a  prophetic  vision  of  Mary  in  which  the 
wonderful  event  was  foretold  ;  and  the  subsequent  inter- 
view with  her  cousin  Elizabeth,  according  to  Luke,  noth- 
ing being  said  by  this  last  writer  about  what  Joseph 
thought,  or  said,  or  did  ;  that  the  other  evangelists  make 
no  allusion  to  it,  either  not  knowing  of  it,  or  consider- 
ing it  not  worth  mentioning,  though  they  reproduce  many 
less  important  matters  ;  that  Jesus  himself,  so  far  as  I  can 
discover,  never  made  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  miracu- 
lous circumstances  of  his  birth,  and  never  announced  the 
doctrine,  or  fact,  of  the  Incarnation  ;  and  that  that  doc- 
trine— Incarnation — is  common  to  nearly  all  the  Eastern 
religions  ;  I  can  but  think  that  all  this  is  an  exceedingly 
small  foundation  upon  which  to  build  so  large  a  creed  ; 
and  must  conclude  that  the  dogma  was  an  afterthought, 
for  the  purpose  of  reconciling,  as  I  have  already  said,  those 
very  contradictions.  And  the  Bishop's  argument  con- 
firms my  belief.  It  is  ingenious,  and  shows  exactly  how 
the  theory  of  the  Incarnation,  and  the  sub-theories,  if  I 
may  so  speak,  of  two  natures,  two  wills,  etc.,  originated  ; 
but  nowhere  does  he  show  that  the  fact  or  the  doctrine 
was  announced  or  taught  by  Jesus  ;  nor  that  Jesus  ever 
taught  that  he  sometimes  spoke  as  God  and  sometimes  as 
man.  And  if  Jesus  had  so  taught,  and  had  specified  which 
was  which,  instead  of  leaving  it  for  his  Church  to  find  out, 
in  after  ages,  by  induction  and  other  uncertain  methods, 
it  would  have  saved  a  great  deal  of  trouble.  The  Bishop 
merely  shows  that  the  contradictions  I  point  out  can  be 
explained  in  no  other  way  ;  that  this  theory,  as  he  claims, 
explains  them  fully  ;  and  that  therefore  this  theory  must 
be  true.  That  because  the  body  of  an  ordinary  mortal 
contains  a  soul  which  is  a  separate  entity,  therefore  there 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 67 

is  no  reason  why  Jesus'  body,  in  addition  to  its  soul, 
should  not  have  contained  a  God  also.  To  me  this  looks 
lik  a  non-seqiiitiir ,  for  the  fact  that  all  men  have  only  two 
entities  (body  and  soul)  is  rather  an  argument  against  any 
one  man's  having  had  three.  And  it  suggests  another 
difficulty  in  the  way  of'  my  accepting  the  theory  of  the 
Incarnation,  which  is  this  :  If,  as  the  Bishop  says,  Jesus' 
body  and  soul  were  purely  human,  and  these  two  were 
united  with  his  Godhood,  when  he  died,  and  rose  from 
the  dead,  and  ascended  into  heaven,  what  became  of  the 
soul?  If  the  soul  was  like  what  the  Church  teaches  us  to 
believe  of  the  usual  human  soul,  it  was  inherently  immor- 
tal :  therefore  the  soul  of  Jesus,  distinct  from  his  God- 
hood,  must  either  have  been  stripped  of  its  immortality 
and  annihilated,  or  must  be  existing  still.  If  the  soul  can 
be  so  annihilated,  we  lose  the  assurance  of  immortality, 
for  what  has  been  done  once  may  be  done  again,  and  im- 
mortality, instead  of  being  a  quality  of  the  soul,  is  simply 
a  revocable  permission  of  the  Deity  ;  if  still  existing,  it 
must  exist  as  a  part  of  God,  or  as  distinct  from  Him  :  if 
distinct  from  Him,  then  there  must  be  two  Jesuses  in 
heaven,  Jesus  the  soul,  and  Jesus  the  God  ;  if  not  distinct, 
if  it  is  still  a  part  of  Him,  then  God  the  Son  differs  from 
God  the  Father  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost  in  possessing,  in 
addition  to  his  eternal  God-Spirit,  an  everlasting  human 
soul. 

I  therefore  think  that  the  theory  explains  by  asking  us 
to  throw  aside  experience  and  reject  reason,  and  on 
no  better  grounds  than  the  necessities  of  the  Church. 

The  Bishop  defines  it,  explains  it,  urges  its  reasonable- 
ness, pleads  its  necessity  ;  but  he  fails  to  establish  it  either 
as  a  revelation,  or  as  one  of  Jesus'  original  teachings. 
The  most  that  can  be  said  for  it  is  that  it  is  a  deduction  and 


1 68  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

has  been  voted  to  be  true.  This  voting  is  a  great  thing — 
for  the  Church  ;  it  settles  all  difficulties  satisfactorily — 
to  the  faithful ;  but  my  views  of  church-established  dogmas 
have  been  already  fully  given,  with  my  reasons.  Hence 
I  must  continue  to  think  that  this  "  cardinal  doctrine " 
rests,  as  before  said,  on  nothing  more  substantial  than  the 
exigencies  of  the  Church,  and  that  it  was  never  imagined, 
because  not  needed,  until  long  after  Jesus  had  passed 
away. 

And  another  reason  why  I  did  not,  and  do  not,  care  to 
argue  it,  is  that,  until  the  verity  of  the  New  Testament  is  es- 
tablished ;  until  it  is  shown  to  be  a  divinely  inspired  record  ; 
until  the  divinity  of  Jesus  is  proven,  or,  at  least,  rendered 
probable,  it  were  a  waste  of  time  to  discuss  what  may,  or 
may  not,  be  logically  deducible  from  its,  or  his,  teachings. 

At  the  close  of  my  opening  argument  I  said  :  "  If  Jesus 
were  God,  and  his  disciples  knew  it,  it  seems  strange  that 
they  never  worshipped  him  as  such,  and  I  know  of  no 
passage  of  Scripture  that  shows  that  they  ever  worshipped 
him  as  God,  or  that  he  ever  desired,  expected,  or  received 
divine  honors."  This  the  Bishop  attempts  to  disprove. 
Let  us  see  with  what  success. 

He  quotes  a  number  of  texts  of  the  class  which  I  have 
to  some  extent  discussed,  in  which  Jesus  is  made  to 
appear  as  claiming  to  be  the  son  of  God,  and  even  to 
possess  divine  attributes  and  powers.  These  are  some  of 
the  contradictory  texts  to  which  I  have  applied  the  doc- 
trine of  admissions  and  representations  some  time  since. 
But  even  these  do  not  say  that  he  either  "  desired,  ex- 
pected, or  received  divine  honors."  The  Bishop  uses 
them  to  make  deductions  from.  I  think  so  important  a 
matter,  had  it  been  true,  would  have  been  so  written 
down,  not   inferentially,  but   distinctly.     And   the   undis- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.       1 69 

puted  facts  all  show  that  I  am  right ;  and  that  during  his 
life  Jesus  walked,  talked,  eat,  drank,  slept,  rejoiced,  and 
grieved  with  his  disciples,  as  one  of  them,  though  their 
recognized  chief ;  and  that  he  received  no  more  con- 
sideration from  them  than  any  other  teacher  believed  to 
be  inspired  would  have  received  from  his  disciples  and 
followers ;  and  Jesus  nowhere  tells  them  to  treat  him 
differently. 

Let  us  examine  the  texts. 

The  first  is  John  v.,  23.  "That  all  men  may  honor  the 
Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father."  The  Bishop  leaves 
out  the  word  "  even,"  but  with  or  without  this  word  the 
text  clearly  means  nothing  more  or  less  than  that  inas- 
much as  men  honor  the  Father,  therefore  they  should 
also  honor  the  Son ;  but  not  necessarily  worship  him, 
not,  at  least,  in  the  same  manner  as  God.  This  is  made 
clear  by  the  41st  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  where  he 
says,  "  I  receive  not  honor  from  men."  Here  the  com- 
plaint is  not  that  he  is  not  worshipped,  but  not  honored, 
— not  believed, — as  the  following  verses  show.  And  it 
makes  Jesus  himself  a  witness  to  the  fact  that  he  was  not, 
at  that  very  time,  receiving  divine  worship.  I  hardly  think 
the  Bishop's  first  quotation  a  happy  one  for  the  Church. 

The  next,  John  iii.,  18  and  36,  are  simply  on  the  im- 
portance of  belief  in  the  Son  of  God,  a  subject  which  has 
already  received  full  consideration  ;  they  make  no  refer- 
ence to  worship,  or  divine  honors,  desired  or  extended, 
during  his  life. 

The  next,  John  ix.,  35,  37,  38,  is  the  case  of  the  blind 
man  whose  sight  is  restored.  "Jesus  said  to  him,  Dost 
thou  believe  in  the  Son  of  God  ?  .  .  .  and  he  said  I 
believe,  Lord.  And  falling  down  he  adored  him."  The 
Protestant  Bible  says  simply,  "  and  he  worshipped   him." 


170  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

And  is  this  something  on  which  to  build  an  argument 
that  Jesus  sought  or  received  divine  honors?  If  the 
account  be  true,  it  is  only  an  instance  of  an  ignorant  and 
superstitious  man,  who,  being  relieved  from  a  terrible 
infirmity,  very  naturally  is  disposed  to  worship  the  one 
who  cured  him.  Such  adoration  is  common  in  the  East 
to  the  present  day,  where  a  little  "  baksheesh  "  judiciously 
distributed  will  bring  titles,  and  methods  of  expression 
of  gratitude,  which  to  the  Occidental  ear  and  eye  are 
remarkably  near  to  the  ordinary  idea  of  divine  worship, 
but  it  does  not  really  mean  that  he  who  gives  it  thinks  he 
is  worshipping  his  God,  or  that  he  worships  in  the  same 
way  as  he  would  his  God.  Nor  does  the  text  indicate 
that  Jesus  expected  or  desired  this  man  to  do  even  what 
he  did  ;  and  if  he  had  supposed  that  the  man  was  giving 
him  that  adoration  which  belongs  to  God  alone,  Jesus 
would  most  certainly  have  rebuked  him,  as  when  he 
remonstrated  with  the  man  who  merely  called  him  "  Good 
Master,"  Mark  x.,  18.  And  that  Jesus  spoke  of  himself 
figuratively  as  the  son  of  God  in  this  case,  as  well  as  in 
all  others,  is  shown  by  what  the  same  writer  represents 
him  as  saying,  just  before  his  ascension  :  "  I  ascend  unto 
my  Father,  and  your  Father  ;  and  to  my  God  and  your 
God  "  (John  xx,  17).  Here  Jesus,  after  the  resurrection, 
is  represented  as  stating  the  relations  between  God  and 
himself  to  be  the  same  as  between  God  and  his  (Jesus')  dis- 
ciples. And  let  me,  parenthetically,  in  this  connection, 
quote  what  Peter  said  of  him  (Acts  ii.,  22) :  "  Ye  men  of 
Israel,  hear  these  words:  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man 
approved  of  God  among  you  by  miracles  and  wonders 
and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him  in  the  midst  of  you,  as 
ye  yourselves  also  know."  Peter,  at  that  time,  although 
the  infallible  head  of  an  infallible  Church  (if  the  doctrine 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.       lyl 

of  infallibility  is  not  a  new  one),  did  not  apparently  haVe 
any  knowledge  of,  or,  if  he  did,  much  respect  for,  the 
"  cardinal  doctrine  "  of  the  Incarnation.  A  man  approved 
of  God  by  the  miracles  which  God  worked  through  him  I 
And  this  after  his  death  and  resurrection. 

But  to  resume.  All  the  other  texts  quoted  by  the 
Bishop  have  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  the  assertion 
which  he  is  endeavoring  to  combat,  unless  it  be  Matt, 
xxviii.,  17,  and  John  xx.,  28.  The  other  texts,  if  they 
show  anything,  only  show,  like  those  already  referred  to, 
that  he  claimed  divine  powers  and  attributes,  and  detailed 
the  advantages  of  believing  in  him,  but  again  nothing  is 
said  as  to  desiring  or  receiving  divine  honors.  And  this 
is  a  pregnant  point ;  it  passes  belief  that  if  Jesus  went 
about  telling  the  multitude,  including  his  disciples,  that 
he  was  master  of  life  and  death,  and  could  determine  the 
future  status  of  each  soul,  and  was  believed,  he  would 
have  been  treated  like  any  other  man  who  was  a  teacher, 
a  leader,  a  prophet. 

Now  for  the  two  texts  which  I  have  just  referred  to. 
They  are :  "  And  when  they  saw  him  they  worshipped 
him;  but  some  doubted,"  Matt,  xxviii.,  17  (though  the 
Bishop  omits  these  last  three  words  "  but  some  doubted  ") ; 
and  the  text  which  is  evidently  considered  the  crowning 
quotation  of  all,  for  it  is  given  in  Latin,  Greek,  and  Eng- 
lish: "And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  him,  My 
Lord  and  my  God,"  John  xx.,  28.  These  two  instances 
are  said  to  have  occurred  after  the  resurrection,  and  hence 
are  hardly  evidence  of  what  the  disciples  did  before,  while 
Jesus  was  living  with  them,  which  is  the  period  I  wrote 
about.  Jesus  living  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  an  historical 
personage  ;  Jesus  resurrected  is  utterly  and  entirely  scrip- 
tural, and  his  resurrection  is  attested  only  by  the  Gospels, 


172  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

or,  to  anticipate  a  quotation  which  I  shall  shortly  make  in 
this  connection,  the  only  testimony  of  his  resurrection  is 
the  testimony  of  the  only  persons  on  earth  whose  interest 
it  was  to  misrepresent  the  facts.  But  taking  the  account 
as  it  is,  these  texts  support  my  view.  My  assertion  was 
that  the  disciples  never  worshipped  him,  meaning,  as  the 
context  clearly  shows,  during  his  life,  and  the  Bishop's 
reply  is,  in  substance,  that  after  his  death,  on  one  occasion, 
some  of  the  disciples  worshipped  his  apparition  (because 
some  doubted),  and  that  on  another  occasion  his  appari- 
tion was  worshipped  by  one  disciple,  Thomas.  Or,  in 
plain  English,  if  there  be  any  truth  in  the  story,  which,  as 
we  shall  see  presently,  is,  to  put  it  mildly,  very  doubtful, 
these  men,  knowing  that  Jesus  was  dead,  when  they  saw 
him  before  them  thought  they  saw  a  ghost,  and  did  what 
they  seemingly  never  did  before,  worshipped — frightened, 
perhaps,  into  prayer. 

And  another  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  from  these  ac- 
counts, in  favor  of  my  views.  If  the  disciples  had  wor- 
shipped Jesus  during  his  life,  had  considered  him  as  God, 
they  would  not  have  been  so  very  doubtful  about  the 
result  of  the  crucifixion,  would  not  have  found  it  so  hard 
to  believe  that  their  immortal  and  eternal  God  still  lived. 

Upon  the  subject  of  the  resurrection  I  quote,  at  length, 
and  without  comment,  from  the  admirable  work  of  Vis- 
count Amberly,  from  which  I  have  derived  so  much 
valuable  aid  already,  p.  273. 

4 '  Comparing  now  the  several  narratives  of  the  resurrection  with  one  another, 
we  find  this  general  result.  In  Mark  Jesus  is  said  to  have  appeared  three 
times  : 

1.  To  Mary  Magdalene. 

2.  To  two  disciples. 

3.  To  the  disciples  at  meat. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 73 

"  Two  such  appearances  only  are  recorded  in  Matthew  : 

1.  To  the  women. 

2.  To  the  eleven  in  Galilee. 
"  In  Luke  he  appears  : 

1.  To  Cleopas  and  his  companions. 

2.  To  Peter. 

3.  To  the  eleven  and  others. 

"  In  the  two  last  chapters  of  John  the  appearances  amount  to  four  : 

1.  To  Mary  Magdalene. 

2.  To  the  disciples  without  Thomas. 

3.  To  the  disciples  with  Thomas. 

4.  To  several  disciples  on  the  Tiberias  Lake. 
"  Paul  extends  them  to  six  : 

1.  To  Peter. 

2.  To  the  twelve. 

3.  To  more  than  500. 

4.  To  James. 

5.  To  all  the  apostles. 

6.  To  Paul. 

"  Upon  this  most  momentous  question,  then,  every  one  of  the  Christian 
writers  is  at  variance  with  every  other.  Nor  is  this  all,  for  two  of  the  num- 
ber bring  the  earthly  career  of  Jesus  to  its  final  close  in  a  manner  so  extra- 
ordinary that  we  cannot  imagine  the  occurrence  of  such  an  event,  of  necessity 
so  notorious  and  impressive,  to  have  been  believed  by  the  other  biographers, 
and  yet  to  have  been  passed  over  by  them  without  a  word  of  notice  or 
allusion.  Can  it  be  for  a  moment  supposed  that  two  out  of  the  four  Evan- 
gelists had  heard  of  the  ascension  of  Christ — that  the  most  wonderful  termi- 
nation of  a  wonderful  life — and  either  forgot  to  mention  or  deliberately 
omitted  it  ?  And  may  it  not  be  assumed  that  Paul,  while  detailing  the 
several  occasions  in  which  Christ  had  been  seen  after  his  crucifixion,  must 
needs,  had  he  known  of  it,  have  included  this,  perhaps  the  most  striking 
of  all,  in  his  list  ? " 

I  also  submit  the  following  from  Doubts  of  Infidels,  by 
LeBrun,  being  a  letter  addressed  to  the  clergy  by  "  a  weak 
Christian."    I  quote  the  conclusion,  as  to  the  Resurrection  : 

"  The  malevolence  and  incredulity  of  our  adversaries  the  unbelievers  are 
visible  in  nothing  so  much  as  the  criticism  they  make  on  the  resurrection. 
They  complain,  and  with  some  degree  of  reason,  that  this  most  miraculous 
event,  instead  of  possessing  that  extraordinary  and  uncommonly  clear  evi- 


174  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

dence  which  its  incredible  nature  requires,  bears,  on  the  contrary,  every 
mark  of  a  forgery.  Instead  of  reappearing  to  all  the  world,  that  the  world 
might  believe,  he  is  said  to  have  appeared  to  his  disciples,  who  were  the 
only  men  on  earth  whose  evidence  could  be  exceptionable  in  this  case, — men 
who,  already  engaged  in  the  attempt  of  forming  a  sect  or  party,  could  be  by 
no  means  disinterested  in  their  report, — the  only  men  on  earth  who  could  be 
suspected  of  forgery  in  the  present  instance.  These  are  the  men,  say  our 
enemies,  who  were  to  preach  Jesus  Christ  to  the  world,  and  to  find  arguments 
to  support  the  fact  ;  which  Christ  might  have  inconlrovertibly  established. 
But  the  generation  was  unworthy  of  that  condescension,  we  reply,  which 
they  wickedly  paraphrase  thus  :  '  God,  who  desireth  not  the  death  of  a  sin- 
ner, left  them  in  their  sins  that  they  might  die.  God  who  spared  not  His 
beloved  son,  but  gave  him  to  the  bitterness  of  death  that  sinners  might  be 
saved,  chose,  nevertheless,  to  deprive  mankind  of  the  proper  evidence  of  the 
resurrection,  because  the  Jews  of  that  age  were  sinners.'  Mercy  is  the 
character  of  the  first  act  ;  but  how  shall  we  characterize  the  latter  ?  Is  the 
God  of  the  Christians  inconsistent  with  himself  ?  Did  the  great  and  merci- 
ful Being  act  thus?  Did  He  inspire  four  men  to  write  accounts  of  the 
resurrection  which  disagree  in  almost  every  circumstance  ?  Does  His  divine 
truth  bear  the  semblance  of  forgery  and  invention  that  we  may  show  our 
faith  and  reliance  on  Him  by  making  sacrifice  of  our  reason,  and  believing 
by  an  act,  not  of  the  understanding,  but  of  the  will?  But  why,  O  thou 
Supreme  Governor  !  why  hast  Thou  given  us  reason  if  reason  be  the  accursed 
thing  which  we  ought  to  cast  from  us?  Or,  rather,  is  not  reason  the  first 
and  only  revelation  from  Thee  ?  And  are  not  those  enthusiasts  accursed, 
who,  promulgating  vile  systems  unworthy  of  Thee,  find  their  purposes  are 
not  to  be  accomplished  till  they  have  first  deprived  us  of  Thy  best  gift  ? 
These,  Reverend  Sirs,  are  the  reflections  of  infidels  and  unbelievers, — re- 
flections which  our  truly  Christian  zeal  and  detestation  would  have  prevented 
us  from  repeating,  if  we  had  not  been  supported  by  a  pleasing  anticipation 
of  the  glorious  and  satisfactory  manner  in  which  they  will  be  answered,  ex- 
plained, and  overthrown  by  you  to  the  entire  satisfaction  and  conviction  of 
us  weak  Christians.  Not  by  persecutions,  pains,  penalties,  fines,  and  im- 
prisonment ;  otherwise  the  unbelievers  will  then  sneeringly  say  that  you  are 
incapable  of  answering  them,  or,  what  is  more  unfortunate,  that  they  are 
really  unanswerable." 

I  resume  the  argument. 

The  Bishop  says  that   my  "  next   argument  against  the 
divinity  of    Christ   is — that   His  contemporaries   did   not 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 75 

believe  him  to  be  God.  If  you  say  that  some  of  Christ's  con- 
temporaries did  not  believe  in  Him,  I  consent.  But  if  you 
mean  to  assert  that  all  of  Christ's  contemporaries  did  not 
believe  in  Him,  you  are  asserting  what  is  absolutely  false." 

I  am  afraid  the  Bishop  let  his  indignation  get  the  better 
of  him  at  this  point,  and  inadvertently  fell  into  the  old 
orthodox  habit  of  eking  out  argument  by  epithets.  I 
therefore  overlook  the  outburst ;  I  do  not  think  he  meant 
to  be — what  he  was. 

The  idea  which  I  desired  to  convey  is  this.  In  my 
opinion,  no  one  of  whom  we  have  any  record  ever  be- 
lieved Jesus  to  be  God  Almighty,  or  the  offspring  of 
God  Almighty,  during  his  (Jesus')  life.  And  I  cited 
Luke  hi.,  23  :  "  And  Jesus  himself  began  to  be  about 
thirty  years  of  age,  being  (as  was  supposed)  the  son  of 
Joseph,  which  was  the  son  of  Heli."  Luke  does  not  limit 
or  qualify  his  remark.  He  does  not  say,  "  as  was  sup- 
posed by  some,"  but  he  makes  the  broad  assertion  that  it 
"  was  supposed  "  that  he  was  the  son  of  Joseph.  And 
certainly  if  it  was  "  supposed  "  that  he  was  the  son  of  Joseph, 
it  was  not  supposed  that  he  was  the  son  of  God,  literally, 
or  that  he  was  God.  Then  I  cited  various  texts,  which  I 
need  not  here  repeat,  to  show  that  the  villagers  thought 
he  was  the  natural,  legitimate  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 
And  I  have  never  heard  of,  nor  has  the  Bishop  pointed 
out,  any  of  them  who  thought  otherwise.  I  also  alluded 
to  the  fact  that  his  very  "  brothers  "  did  not  believe  in 
him,  and  considering  that  "  brothers  "  meant  "  brothers," 
and  not  merely  "  relatives,"  from  the  fact  that  they  evi- 
dently lived  in  the  house  with  him  (for  he  speaks  of 
being  without  honor  in  his  own  house),  thought  it  strange 
they  should  not  believe  notwithstanding  what  their 
mother    (step-mother,    possibly)    must    have    told    them 


176  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

about  his  miraculous  origin.  I  supposed  that  she  must 
have  told  them  because  her  condition  was  such,  at  the 
time  Joseph  married  her,  that  it  had  to  be  accounted  for, 
and  if  they  were  older  brothers,  by  a  former  wife  (as 
some  think),  the  explanation,  in  justice  to  their  father 
and  his  bride,  should  have  been  extended  to  them  ;  and 
if  they  were  the  sons  of  Joseph  by  Mary  after  Jesus' birth, 
which  is  very  possible,  not  to  say  probable,1  it  seemed  to  me 
but  natural  that  their  mother,  if  she  so  believed,  should 
have  told  them  that  their  eldest  brother  was  their  God, 
and,  in  support  of  her  somewhat  startling  assertion,  have  at 
least  alluded  to  the  facts  of  the  Incarnation. 

These  inferences  seem  to  me  to  be  not  only  justifiable, 
but  almost  necessary ;  and  if  they  are  correct,  then  my 
statement,  which  seems  to  have  so  excited  the  good 
Bishop,  must  be  true.  And  what  does  he  advance  to  dis- 
prove it  ?  He  admits  that  for  the  first  thirty  years  of  his  life 
"  little  did  the  ignorant  villagers  of  boorish  Galilee  dream 
of  the  wonderful  treasure  hidden  away  in  Nazareth.  He 
concealed  his  divinity,  and  he  appeared  to  their  eyes  as 
only  the  carpenter's  son  "  ;  so  that  if  any  one  knew  better 
he  must  have  been  taken  into  his  confidence  by  Jesus 
before  he  was  ready  to  act ;  and  I  am  referred  to  no  such 
confidant. 

1  Matthew  i.,  25,  says,  speaking  of  Joseph  remaining  away  from  Mary  at 
first,  "  And  knew  her  not  until  she  had  brought  forth  her  first-born  son," 
thereby  implying  that  after  the  birth  of  Jesus  she  became  the  wife,  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  of  Joseph  and  bore  him  other  sons  ;  and  Luke  also  says,  ii., 
7,  "and  brought  forth  her  first-born  son"  (and  it  would  seem,  from  the 
text  in  Matthew,  whether  she  again  became  a  mother  or  not,  that  she  lost 
her  right  to  the  continued  title  of  "virgin")  ;  and  I  cannot  see  why  there 
should  be  such  an  impossibility  in  her  having  had  other  children,  or  how 
such  fact,  if  it  existed,  could  detract  from  her  honor  ;  in  fact  to  be  a  barren 
wife  was  not  formerly  considered  to  be  an  honor. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 77 

At  this  point  the  Bishop  utterly  begs  the  question,  and 
proceeds  to  cite  texts  to  show  that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the 
son  of  God,  a  point  which  I  have  already  discussed,  but 
he  neglects  to  show  who,  if  any,  believed  him.  Then  he 
gets  back  to  the  question  by  saying,  "  that  the  disci- 
ples of  Christ  fully  admitted  his  claim  to  be  the  son  of 
God  is  beyond  all  doubt — as  I  have  shown.  Now  they 
surely  were  his  contemporaries."  They  certainly  were 
his  contemporaries,  and  had  better  opportunities  to  judge 
of  him  than  had  others.  The  difficulty  is  not  there.  It 
is  in  the  Bishop's  thinking  that  he  has  proved  that  they 
believed  him  to  have  been  the  physical  son  of  God, 
and  God  himself,  while  I  think  he  has  proved  nothing 
of  the  sort.  This  has  been  discussed  while  arguing 
the  question  of  Jesus'  receiving  divine  honors  on  earth; 
and  we  there  saw  that  even  after  it  was  "  consum- 
mated "  some  of  the  disciples  doubted.  The  texts  now 
cited  do  not  justify  the  Bishop's  assertion,  nor  do  I 
find  him  more  fortunate  in  his  reference  to  the  "  legal 
proceedings  of  two  courts  of  justice  "  :  for  while  he  uses 
them  to  show  that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  son  of  God, 
the  facts  cited  seem  to  establish  the  point  that  nobody 
believed  him  ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  thought  him 
guilty  of  blasphemy.  Then  after  stating  that  the  legal 
accusation  brought  against  him  was  that  he  claimed 
to  be  the  son  of  God,  he  adds :  "  your  [my]  training 
as  a  lawyer  will  doubtless  teach  you  that  the  legal  pro- 
ceedings of  two  courts  of  justice  are  certainly  ample 
proof  that  the  contemporaries  of  Christ  knew  that  he 
claimed  to  be  the  son  of  God." 

My  training  as  a  lawyer  shows  me  two  difficulties 
here  which  the  Bishop's  training  as  a  priest  caused  him  to 
overlook.      One  is  that  before  the  record  of    a  court  is 


178  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

proof  of  anything,  it  must  be  established  as  a  record — 
not  as  a  report  made  by  some  unknown,  or  unauthorized, 
person,  but  as  the  official  record,  so  recognized  by  the 
judge,  and  properly  authenticated  ;  and  as  the  only  record 
of  the  alleged  proceedings  is  the  account  given  by  the 
evangelists,  the  trustworthiness  of  which  account  I  am 
attacking,  the  "  proceedings  "  in  the  form  in  which  they 
are  presented  do  not  possess  any  extraordinary  degree 
of  value  in  my  eyes  ;  they  have  yet  to  be  established. 

The  other  difficulty  is  that  he  produces  these  proceed- 
ings to  show  that  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus  knew  that 
he  claimed  to  be  the  son  of  God,  while  the  point  which 
he  was  trying  to  combat,  at  this  time,  is  not  that  they 
did  not  know  that  he  so  claimed,  but  that,  even  if  he  did, 
they  did  not  believe  him.  The  point  is  (and  I  am  sur- 
prised that  the  Bishop  forgot  it,  for  it  seems  to  have 
annoyed  him  more  than  any  other),  did  his  contem- 
poraries believe  in  him  ?  And  these  "  proceedings,"  if  the 
record  were  established  and  admitted  in  evidence,  would 
be  my  witness,  not  the  Church's,  on  this  point.  It  is  true 
that  I  elsewhere  maintain  that  Jesus  did  not  claim  to  be 
God,  nor  the  son,  in  the  sense  of  offspring,  of  God  ;  and 
these  proceedings  do  not  show  the  contrary  even  of  that. 
If  admitted,  they  would  only  show  that  he  claimed  to  be, 
not  God,  but  the  son  of  God,  whether  figuratively  or 
literally  they  do  not  say,  leaving  that  point  to  be  deter- 
mined by  other  evidence. 

I  fear  the  Bishop  may  be  correct  in  accusing  me  of 
inaccurate  use  of  Roman  Catholic  technology  in  speak- 
ing of  the  Immaculate  Conception.  But  what  I  meant 
was  the  immaculate  conception  by  the  Virgin  Mary  of 
Jesus — not  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin 
Mary :  the  old,  original,  not  the  recent,  one.     I  trust  my 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       IJQ 

"  medley,"  though  I  think  it  was  more  seeming  than  real, 
is  cleared  up. 

I  have  already  answered  the  Bishop's  question  as  to 
why  Mary  should  have  told  the  brethren  of  Jesus  about 
the  wonders  of  his  birth,  and  I  have  given  some  authority 
for  supposing  them  to  be  the  sons  of  Mary.  The  Bishop's 
attention  had  not,  at  the  time  he  wrote  his  argument, 
been  called  to  the  statements  of  Matthew  and  Luke  as  to 
Jesus  being  her  first-born  son  :  he,  as  a  learned  priest, 
undoubtedly  knew  of  the  texts,  and  my  not  having  called 
his  attention  to  them  could  only  have  affected  the  argu- 
ment by  causing  him  to  suppose  that  I  did  not  know  of 
them,  and  that  as  I  had  not  cited  them  he  need  not 
answer  them  ;  but  if  I  had,  I  suppose  his  reply  would 
have  been  the  same :  "  That  the  ever  blessed  Mary  was 
a  Virgin,  having  no  other  child  than  the  miraculously 
born  Jesus,  has  been  the  constant  teaching  of  all  Chris- 
tians from  the  commencement."  This  either  proves 
nothing  or  proves  too  much.  The  miraculous  birth  of 
Gautama-Buddha,  and  his  Incarnation,  have  been  con- 
stantly taught  from  centuries  before  the  birth  of  Jesus  until 
now,  and  are  believed  by  priests  so  highly  educated  and 
so  intelligent  that  very  few  Christian  missionaries  can  cope 
with  them  in  argument.  But  does  that  prove  the  story 
true?     If  it  does  in  the  one  case,  why  not  in  the  other? 

He  says,  "  the  title  of  '  the  Virgin  '  has  been  given 
her  in  all  ages ;  the  writings  of  all  history  are  here  to 
prove  this."  Can  we  find  her  so  called  by  others  than 
Christian  writers?  Did  they  know  more  about  it  than 
we  do?  Is  not  all  they  know  from  the  Bible,  and  the 
Church,  and  does  their  calling  her  so  prove  any  more  than 
the  Bible  or  the  Church  does?  Does  it  add  any  force 
whatever  to  the  argument  ? 


180  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

As  to  the  argument  that  Jesus'  "  brothers  "  were  not 
his  brothers,  but  more  distant  relatives,  I  have  only  this 
to  say.  In  any  view  of  the  word,  the  use  made  of  it  in  this 
place,  and  in  this  way,  indicates  that  it  was  intended  to 
convey  the  idea  of  blood  relations  who  lived  with  him,  and 
who  went  about  as  companions  of  his  mother ;  and  speak- 
ing of  brothers  and  sisters  as  a  means  of  identification  (are 
not  his  brothers  so  and  so,  and  his  father  and  mother 
Joseph  and  Mary,  and  do  we  not  know  them,  and  his  sisters), 
and  the  surprise  implied  in  the  statement  that  they  did 
not  believe  in  him  either  (or  if  not  surprise,  the  complaint), 
would  show  that  the  word  was  more  probably  used  in  its 
nearer,  rather  than  in  its  remoter  sense.  Its  being  used 
in  a  remoter  sense  seems  to  me  to  have  no  more  authority 
in  this  connection  than  the  other  view,  if  so  much  ;  but  it 
has  the  advantage  of  explaining  away  a  very  ugly  diffi- 
culty as  to  Mary's  continued  virginity  ;  and  that  is  the 
only  advantage  it  has  ;  for  relatives  as  intimate  with  the 
family,  and  as  much  cherished  as  they  evidently  were, 
would  answer  the  other  purposes  of  my  argument  just  as 
well  as  if  they  had  been  real  brothers  and  sisters. 

Now,  as  to  his  mother's  belief,  I  do  not  care  to  add 
much  to  what  I  have  already  said.  I  have  expressed 
myself  very  moderately.  I  have  not  said  it  was  positive, 
I  only  said  the  "  probabilities  are  strong."  I  have  stated 
the  facts  and  drawn  my  deductions.  The  Bishop  thinks 
it  but  natural  that  Mary,  "  not  knowing  all  the  circum- 
stances as  he  does,"  should  wish  to  speak  to  him  and 
should  not  hesitate  to  interrupt  him  when  he  was  preach- 
ing. I  am  again  constrained  to  differ  from  him.  I  think 
that  if  she  believed  her  son  to  be  God  Almighty — her  own 
Creator,  since  he  made  all  things — she  would  have  taken  it 
for  granted  that  he  knew  what  he  was  doing,  and  would 


THE    TR UTH  OF  DOGMA  TIC  CHRIS TIA NITY.       1 8 1 

not  have  attempted  to  interfere  with  him  in  any  manner. 
Nor  would  she,  in  my  opinion,  if  she  did  undertake  to 
interrupt  her  God  while  he  was  preaching,  have  taken  his 
unbelieving  "relatives"  with  her.  Under  such  a  belief 
the  whole  transaction  would  have  been  very  singular,  very 
unnatural,  very  improbable.  But  when  we  consider  that 
the  Pharisees  were  taking  counsel  how  they  might  destroy 
him  (Matt,  xii.,  14),  and  he  was  therefore  making  enemies 
as  well  as  friends,  the  enemies  being  by  far  the  more 
powerful ;  when  we  remember  that  his  friends,  just  before, 
were  out  seeking  to  "  lay  hold  on  him,"  saying,  "  He  is 
beside  himself"  (Mark  hi.,  21),  the  conclusion  seems  well- 
nieh  irresistible  that  his  mother  and  brothers  called  him 
to  them  for  the  purpose  of  checking  him  in  a  course  which 
they  feared  would,  as  it  did,  result  in  his  destruction. 
And  if  this  view  be  correct, — and  I  see  no  escape  from  it, 
— his  mother,  not  probably,  but  surely,  did  not  believe  he 
was  her  God.1 

I  must  notice,  very  briefly,  some  other  points  made  by 
the  Bishop.  He  considers  the  Angel's  visitation  to  Mary 
as  evidence  of  Mary's  belief  in  her  son  as  God,  gravely 
asserting  that  "  She  certainly  could  not  doubt  an  Angel's 
word."  I  trust  I  may  be  pardoned  for  suggesting  that 
Mary  herself  was  to  herself  better  authority  as  to  this 
particular  matter  than  even  an  Archangel  ;  and  as  my 
argument,  as  a  whole,  is  intended  throughout  to  disprove 
that,  among  other  myths,  I  hardly  think  my  mind,  "  accus- 
tomed to  reasoning,"  would  have  laid  much  stress  on  it 
even  if  it  had  been  new  to  me.  Pretty  much  the  same 
story  is  told  in  too  many  religions,  very  much  older  than 
the  Christian,  for  it  to  have  any  very  wonderfully  con- 

1  See  also  Luke  ii.,  46-50,  where,  when  Jesus  spoke  to  them  about  his 
"  Father's  business,"  they  did  not  understand  what  he  meant. 


1 82  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

vincing  powers.  The  Bishop  has  fallen  into  an  error 
common  with  the  clergy.  I  attack  a  certain*  doctrine 
founded  on  a  Biblical  story,  and  endeavor  to  show  from 
the  innate  defects  of  the  doctrine,  and  the  palpable  incon- 
sistencies and  absurdities  of  the  story,  that  the  doctrine 
cannot  be  true,  and  he  cites  to  me  the  disputed  story  as 
sufficient  evidence  to  establish  the  doubted  doctrine. 
Verily,  it  looks  as  if,  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  Heaven 
through  the  door  of  the  Church,  it  is  necessary  to  become 
as  a  little  child,  not  only  in  faith,  but  in  argument. 

When  I  said  that  I  did  not  believe  that  Jesus  was  God, 
nor  the  son,  in  the  sense  of  offspring,  of  God,  it  was,  of 
course,  included  that  I  did  not  believe  in  the  Incarnation, 
or  any  of  the  myths  which  are  supposed  to  sustain  that 
theory.  And  I  think  there  is  enough  in  the  Bible  in  the 
way  of  contradictions  and  absurdities  to  prove  my  view 
correct  ;  and  when  I  finish  my  comments  on  the  Bishop's 
argument  I  shall  point  out  some  of  them  under  Prop.  VL 

As  to  the  wonderful  prophecy  ascribed  to  the  Virgin 
Mary,  contained  in  her  little  speech  to  Elizabeth,  and  its 
fulfilment  ;  if  the  Bishop  can  derive  any  comfort  from  its 
being  believed,  and  therefore  fulfilled,  by  those  who  have 
never  known  any  better,  I  am  not  disposed  to  interfere 
with  him.  Only  I  do  not  think  he  ought  to  adduce  it  as 
evidence  of  anything  except  the  wonderful  character  of 
Christian  faith  that  halts  at  nothing — not  even  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  intellect. 

The  Bishop  is  quite  indignant  and  somewhat  eloquent 
at  my  saying  that  Mary's  presence  at  the  cross  was 
"  natural  without  its  being  necessary  to  suppose  her  a 
believer  in  the  extraordinary  views  now  held  of  her  son.'* 
•  I  think  the  Bishop  misconstrues  my  meaning.  I  certainly 
did  not  mean  to  say  that  it  was  "  natural  "  for  a  mother  to 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 83 

desire  to  behold  the  execution  of  her  son  ;  but  only  that 
if  she  did  go  to  the  last  act  of  the  tragedy  it  was  a  natural 
result  of  the  disposition  of  that  particular  mother  to  stand 
by,  and  be  ready  to  do  what  she  could  for  her  child  when 
he  was  in  his  last  extremity  and  deserted  by  every  one  else, 
even  at  the  cost  of  any  personal  suffering  of  her  own. 
The  Bishop  thinks  her  presence  "  offers  a  strong  prob- 
ability that  she  with  woman's  fidelity  still  clung  to  him  as 
God,  when  men  had  crucified  him  for  asserting  it."  So  he 
evidently  thinks  it  natural  enough  for  "  woman's  fidelity  " 
to  make  her  do  what  would  be  unnatural  if  prompted  by 
a  mother's  love.  Does  he  think  it  would  be  less  harrow- 
ing to  see  her  son  crucified  because  he  was  also  her  God, 
than  if  he  had  not  borne  that  dual  relation  to  her?  Does 
a  doubted  God  appeal  more  deeply  to  a  mother's  heart 
than  a  deserted  son  ? 

The  Bishop  is  particularly  severe  on  what  he  calls  my 
"sublimely  absurd"  definition,  and  "  horrible  caricature," 
of  the  Incarnation.  My  remarks  were  that  natural  reason 
"  would  seem  to  abhor  the  idea  that  the  Great  Almighty 
God,  Ruler  of  the  entire  universe,  could  or  would  engen- 
der a  physical  son  to  be  borne  and  born,  in  a  purely  human 
way,  by  and  of  a  woman,  His  own  handiwork,  upon  this 
speck  of  matter  which  we  call  earth."  I  did  not  attempt 
to  define  ;  I  merely  meant  to  speak  of  the  event  as  it  must 
have  occurred  if  it  occurred  at  all. 

The  given  facts  are  plainly  these.  Mary,  a  woman  like 
other  women,  became  with  child  ;  how,  is  not  now  the 
question.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that — except  the 
conception — everything  went  on  naturally  and  in  the  usual 
course.  The  subject  is  a  delicate  one,  and  I  do  not  care 
to  go  into  details.  But  even  if  the  conception  were  mirac- 
ulous, and  I   suppose  the  Incarnation  theory   claims  no 


1 84  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

more,  all  the  rest  of  the  affair  is  to  me  simply  horrible  to 
think  about — and  even  the  Book  says  she  had  to  be  puri- 
fied after  it  was  all  over — in  connection  with  my  ideal  of 
God.  The  story  is  essentially  the  invention  of  a  coarse,  un- 
sesthetic  people.  The  Greek  idea  of  springing  fully  grown, 
armed,  and  equipped  from  the  brain  of  Jove,  is  far  more 
poetic,  fully  as  natural,  and  certainly  far  less  repulsive. 

The  term  "  physical  son  "  seems  to  worry  the  Bishop. 
If  Jesus'  body  was  a  human  body,  it  was  a  physical  body, 
and  if  he,  with  such  body,  was  a  son,  he  was  a  physical  son  ; 
and  if  a  physical  son  of  God  is  an  absurdity  (which  I  most 
devoutly  believe),  so  is  the  Incarnation,  even  though  it  be, 
as  it  is,  the  "  fundamental  doctrine  of  all  Christianity  " — 
that  is,  of  all  dogmatic  Christianity. 

I  think  I  have  shown  incontrovertible  reasons  for 
believing  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  not  God,  nor  the 
son,  in  the  sense  of  offspring,  of  God  ;  that  he  never 
claimed  to  be  either,  nor  did  others  claim  it  for  him  until 
long  after  his  death  ;  that  during  his  life  he  never  sought 
or  received  divine  honors  ;  that  he  taught  no  new  ethics  ; 
and  that  the  ethics  of  many  of  the  "  pagans  "  were  superior 
to  those  of  the  Jews,  and  equal  to  those  of  the  Church. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  only  point  on  which  there  can 
be  any  doubt  whatever,  is  whether  Jesus  ever  represented 
himself  as  divine,  either  as  God  or  as  the  son  of  God.  I 
think  the  facts,  in  view  of  all  the  surrounding  circum- 
stances, clearly  indicate  that  he  did  not ;  for  myself  I  feel 
no  doubts  on  the  subject.  But  had  he  made  such  claims, 
their  only  effect  would  have  been  that  we  would  then  be 
forced  to  regard  him  as  a  fanatic,  under  an  insane  delusion, 
or  as  an  impostor.  But,  thank  God,  we  are  not  reduced 
to  that  strait :  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  is  over- 
whelmingly in  favor  of  his  innocence,  and  we  can,   from 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.        1 85 

the  depths  of  our  souls,   exclaim   with   Renan   {Jesus,   a 
condensation  of  La  Vie  de  Jesus,  by  Ernest  Renan,  Paris, 

1864): 

"En  tout  cas,  Jesus  ne  sera  pas  surpasse.  Son  culte  se  rajeunira  sans 
cesse  ;  sa  legende  provoquera  des  plus  beaux  yeux  des  larmes  sans  tin  ;  ses 
souffrances  attendriront  les  meilleurs  coeurs  ;  tons  les  siecles  proclameront 
qu'entre  les  tils  des  homines,  il  n'en  est  pas  ne  de  plus  grand  que  Jesus." 


THE  ARGUMENT. 

PROPOSITION  V. 

V.  If  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  God,  he  could  not  have  been 
betrayed,  and  Judas  Iscariot  was  but  a  helpless  in- 
strument in  the  hands  of  Omnipotence ;  if  Judas  was 
a  traitor,  Jesus  was  not  God  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  free- 
will does  not  relieve  us  from  the  dilemma,  for  the 
attempt  to  reconcile  free-will  with  the  attributes  of 
God  results  only  in  attacking  His  absolute  supremacy. 

Although  this  is  the  proposition  which  started  our  dis- 
cussion, I  think  it  more  naturally  comes  in  at  this  point. 

I  had  heard  the  Bishop  preach  a  sermon  in  the  course 
of  which  Judas  Iscariot  received  a  very  large  amount  of 
vituperation,  and  was  held  up  to  the  execration  of  the 
world  ;  I  subsequently  read  an  article  from  the  Bishop's 
pen  upon  the  same  subject  and  to  the  same  effect ;  I  knew 
that  he  held  and  taught  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  was 
God  ;  and  the  evident  inconsistency  of  the  two  positions 
occurred  to  me  so  forcibly  that  I  wrote  him  a  paper  on 
the  subject,  and  thus  began  what  turned  out  to  be  to  me, 
and  I  hope  to  many  others,  an  interesting  and  instructive 
argument. 

It  may  be  well  to  mention,  in  view  of  the  nature  of  the 
discussion,  that  in  the  course  of  the  article  referred  to  the 
Bishop  says  that  the  character  of  Judas  is  so  well  in  ac- 
cord with  the  prevailing  ideas  of  the  age,  that  he  would 

186 


DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  1 87 

not  be  surprised  to  hear  of  the  erection  of  a  statue  in  his 
commemoration. 

After  commenting  very  freely  on  the  enormity  of  the 
crime  of  Judas,  as  viewed  from  his  standpoint,  he  says, 
(in  the  same  article)  "  supposing  even  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  not  God,"  and  goes  on  to  show  how  base,  even  in  that 
view,  Judas  was. 

If  Jesus  were  a  messenger  of  God — or  a  prophet — or  an 
inspired  teacher — or  anything  else,  except  God,  he  was 
betrayed  by  one  whom  he  had  selected  as  a  friend,  who 
held  a  responsible  office  among  the  apostles,  and  who 
was  always  treated  by  Jesus  with  the  utmost  kindness. 
And  when  Jesus  (viewing  him  as  a  man  only)  sought  to 
avoid  arrest  and  punishment  and  withdrew,  with  that  ob- 
ject, to  a  retired  place,  it  was  certainly  most  infamous  in 
Judas  to  betray  him,  and  especially  to  betray  him  in  the 
manner  narrated.  Therefore,  in  this  view  of  the  matter, 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  agreeing  with  the  Bishop,  and 
saying  that  Judas  was,  and  is,  without  excuse,  and  deserves 
any  amount  of  unpitying  abuse  and  execration. 

But  many  people  think  (and  I  am  afraid  the  Bishop  is 
one  of  them)  that  if  it  is  so  horrible  to  betray  a  mere  man, 
it  is  much  more  so  to  betray  one's  God.  But  I  think  that 
is  because  they  have  not  thought  very  fully  on  the  sub- 
ject, having  found  it  easier  to  accept  ready-made  views, 
than  to  think  out  such  things  for  themselves  ;  or,  more 
probably  still,  never  having  thought  about  it  at  all. 

If  Jesus  was  God,  as  is  claimed  by  most  of  the  Churches, 
Protestant  as  well  as  Roman  Catholic,  then  the  entire  as- 
pect of  the  affair  changes.  He  was  then  omnipotent  and 
omniscient ;  he  had  come  into  the  world  according  to 
his  own  pre-arranged  plan  of  salvation.  By  that  plan  he 
was  to  be  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  to  be  betrayed  by  a 


1 88  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

disciple  of  his  own  choosing,  chosen  for  that  purpose  ;  and 
that  disciple  was  to  be  Judas,  who  must  have  been  created 
for  that  purpose,  and  his  whole  course  pre-arranged  ;  other- 
wise the  scheme  of  salvation  was  undertaken  and  carried 
on  without  any  clearly  arranged  plan. 

If  this  be  so,  Judas  was  necessarily  a  helpless  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  God,  and  could  no  more  control  his  actions 
than  he  could  have  controlled  his  birth,  or  his  selection 
for  the  purpose  ;  and  in  this  view  he  is  entitled  to  our 
commiseration,  our  pity,  not  our  abuse.  It  was  punish- 
ment enough  to  have  to  play  such  a  role. 

Is  this  view  correct?  Was  he  a  helpless  instrument? 
Could  he  have  controlled  his  actions?  Did  he  possess 
free-will?  This  may,  I  think,  be  easily  settled.  If  he  was 
a  free  agent,  capable  of  doing  what  he  wished,  then  the 
whole  of  God's  scheme  of  salvation  was  in  imminent  dan- 
ger of  miscarrying  through  failure  to  find  a  betrayer;  for 
it  will  hardly  be  contended  that  Jesus  did  not  try,  by 
words  and  example  (and  if  he  were  God,  to  try  would 
seem  to  imply  necessarily  to  succeed),  to  make  all  of  his 
disciples  good  men  :  which  might  have  resulted,  if  he  were 
a  free  agent,  in  Judas'  repentance  and  failure  to  betray; 
and  the  same  difficulty  might  have  occurred  with  all,  es- 
pecially if  they  believed  their  exhorter  to  be  God,  and 
therefore  infallibly  right,  and  so  a  betrayer  might  have 
failed  him  at  the  last  moment.  And  a  betrayer  was  cer- 
tainly necessary,  for,  apart  from  the  fact  that  I  cannot 
believe  that  Jesus  would  descend  to  any  unnecessary 
clap-trap,  Jesus  was  clearly  avoiding  arrest.  That  this 
is  so  is  shown  by  his  going  to  a  retired  place  to  which 
Judas  had  to  guide  his  enemies  ;  and  by  his  praying  that, 
if  possible,  the  cup  might  pass  from  him. 

Being  God,  and  omnipotent,  it  would  be  absurd  to  sup- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 89 

pose  that  Judas  could  betray  him  before  he  was  ready  to 
be  betrayed  ;  and  being  omniscient,  he  must  have  known 
when  he  selected  him  that  Judas  would  betray  him.  And, 
being  God,  he  must  have  been,  in  the  selection  of  a  be- 
trayer, in  the  avoiding  arrest,  and  in  the  betrayal  itself, 
but  carrying  out  the  details  of  his  own  plan. 

Nor  do  we  get  out  of  this  difficulty  by  saying  that 
Judas  was  a  wicked  man,  and  was  chosen  for  that  reason, 
but  could  have  changed  his  life,  reformed,  and  refused  to 
betray.  He  was  chosen  to  betray,  if  Jesus  was  an  omnipo- 
tent God,  and,  being  omniscient,  he  must  have  chosen 
him  because  he  knew  he  could  not  change.  To  suppose 
him  able  to  change  is  to  suppose  the  creature  to  be  able 
to  thwart  the  creator  ;  for,  as  I  have  said,  if  Judas  had 
reformed,  so  might  any  other  selected  in  his  place,  and 
Jesus  be  thus  left  without  a  betrayer. 

So,  either  Judas  was  restrained  by  omnipotent  power 
from  being  a  better  man,  and  forced  to  do  as  he  did,  and 
hence  not  a  free-agent ;  and  being  created,  as  he  was,  by 
an  omnipotent  power,  which  must  have  foreseen  what  he 
was  to  be  selected  to  do,  he  is  elevated  from  a  merely  base 
man  to  be  one  of  the  essential  instruments  of  salvation; 
or,  events  can  happen  otherwise  than  as  God  wills,  and 
any  of  His  schemes  (for  this  is  said  to  be  His  most 
glorious)  may  be  thwarted  by  His  own  creatures,  who  by 
an  inexplicable  contradiction  are  predestined  free  agents ! 

And  this  is  not  an  attempt  to  measure  the  ways  of  God 
by  human  reason  in  any  offensive  sense.  If  there  is  any- 
thing which  makes  us  "  in  the  image  of  God,  "  it  is  the  gift 
of  reason.  As  I  have  more  than  once  said,  all  that  is 
above  and  beyond  our  reason  is  proper  subject-matter  for 
faith  ;  but  that  which  is  below  our  reason  must  be  utterly 
unworthy  of  God.     That  He  should  be  omnipotent  and 


190  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

omniscient — that  He  should  exist  at  all — is  beyond  our 
comprehension,  and  therefore  may  be  believed,  and  cannot 
be  disproved  ;  but  that,  being  all-powerful  and  all-knowing, 
events  can  happen  which  He  did  not  wish,  and  did  not 
foresee,  is  too  palpable  a  contradiction,  even  to  our  limited 
apprehensions,  not  to  be  rejected  as  absurd. 

I  have  heard  but  one  answer:  "The  subject  is  too 
sacred  for  discussion.  "  If  this  be  so,  as  so  many  good 
people  maintain  ;  if  we  must  yield  our  reason  to  the  dic- 
tum of  the  Church ;  if  belief  in  such  absurdities  be  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  I  can  well  understand  why  one  must 
become  as  a  little  child  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

At  this  point  occur  the  remarks  which  brought  on  the 
discussion  of  dogmas  and  councils,  and  which  being  given 
there  need  not  be  repeated  here.  (See  Prop.  III.) 

To  return  to  Judas.  What  I  have  written  seems  to  me 
to  indicate,  not  that  Judas  was  a  good  man,  or  deserving 
of  eulogy  or  marble ;  but  that  of  two  things  one.  Either 
he  was  a  wicked  wretch,  as  he  is  so  often  described,  in 
which  case  Jesus  must  have  been  man,  and  man  only, 
since  "  to  betray  "  carries  with  it  necessarily  the  idea  of 
an  attempt  on  Jesus'  part  to  escape1  from  what  he  saw  was 
imminent,  and  being  disappointed  in  his  efforts,  ideas  in- 
consistent with  the  very  fundamental  idea  of  God  ;  or,  he 
was  merely  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  God  ;  and 
whether  chosen  because  he  had  been  created  wicked,  or 
created  wicked  because  he  was  to  be  chosen,  equally 
entitled  to  be  left  to  the  mercy  of  his  God. 

To  which  the  Bishop  replied  : 

"  The  first  charge  which  you  make  in  your  document  is 
*  Jesus  was  clearly  avoiding  arrest. '  I  do  not  know  where 
the  grounds  for  such  an  accusation  can  be  obtained  except 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       191 

from  the  infidel  works  of  Strauss,  Renan,  etc.  The  Gospel 
accounts  tell  just  the  opposite.  They  tell  us  that  our 
Divine  Saviour  frequently  foretold  that  He  would  be 
delivered  into  the  hands  of  His  enemies,  be  scourged,  and 
put  to  death.  He  consequently  not  only  expected  it,  but 
when  Peter,  in  a  moment  of  mistaken  zeal,  asserted  that 
such  a  doom  was  not  to  be  the  fate  of  his  beloved  Master, 
Christ  severely  rebuked  him.  When  at  length  the  event- 
ful evening  came,  instead  of  flight,  all  was  calm  expecta- 
tion that  His  hour  had  arrived.  On  the  day  of  His  arrest 
He  came  from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem  where  He  knew  that 
the  highest  officers  of  the  State  were,  and  that  they  were 
seeking  an  opportunity  to  arrest  Him.  Is  this  the  con- 
duct of  a  man  seeking  to  avoid  arrest  ?  Calmly  He  cele- 
brated the  feast  of  the  Paschal  Lamb,  and  while  doing  so 
told  the  Apostles  that  the  hour  was  at  hand  when  they 
would  all  abandon  Him  (John  xvi.,  31)  ;  that  Peter  would 
that  very  night  deny  Him  thrice  ;  that  '  this  night '  (hac 
nocte)  the  shepherd  was  to  be  struck  and  the  sheep  dis- 
persed (Mark  xiv.).  He  appointed  Galilee  as  the  place 
where  He  would  meet  them  after  His  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  Having  celebrated  the  Passover,  He  retired,  know- 
ing His  hour  to  be  at  hand,  to  a  place  for  prayer.  The 
place  to  which  He  went  was  one  to  which  He  was  accus- 
tomed to  go  (Luke  xxiii.).  'And  Judas  also  knew  the 
place,  because  Jesus  had  often  resorted  thither  with  His 
disciples '  (John  xviii.).  Does  a  fugitive  from  the  officers 
of  the  law  waste  valuable  hours  in  prayer?  Does  he  go 
to  the  place  of  his  old  habitual  haunts,  and  well  known  to 
the  very  leader  of  the  party  seeking  to  arrest  him  ? 

"The  next  argument  adduced  to  prove  that  Jesus 
avoided  arrest  is  that  '  He  prayed  that  if  possible  the  cup 
might  pass  away.'     But  you  forget  to  state  that  to  these 


I92  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

words  Jesus  immediately  added  the  prayer  :  '  but  not  what 
I  will,  but  what  Thou  wilt.'  As  the  martyr  when  brought 
face  to  face  with  the  gibbet  on  which  his  limbs  are  to  be 
racked,  and  on  which  he  is  to  be  put  to  a  cruel  death, 
will  naturally  feel  his  entire  being  recoil  at  the  hideous 
torments  prepared  for  him,  so  the  innocent  humanity  of 
Jesus.  The  hour  had  come  for  the  fearful  torturing  and 
unparalleled  humiliations.  His  highly  sensitive  body 
naturally  recoiled  ;  but  in  adding  the  grand  words  of  re- 
signation, 'not  my  will  but  Thine  be  done,'  Jesus,  like 
every  true  martyr,  far  from  seeking  to  evade,  offered  him- 
self to,  the  awful  sacrifice.  His  prayer,  therefore,  is  only 
an  additional  proof  that  He  did  not  seek  to  avoid  arrest. 
"  You  do  not  acknowledge  Jesus  to  be  God.  The  Catho- 
lic Church  teaches  that  He  was  God,  '  by  whom  all  things 
were  made,  and  without  Him  nothing  was  made' — St. 
John.  And  He — God  —  'was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt 
among  us.'  Either  Christ  was  really  God  clothed  in  flesh 
and  blood,  or  He  was  merely  a  man.  If  He  was  merely  a 
man,  He  must  be  looked  upon  as  one  guilty  of  enormous 
falsehood.  For  what  more  enormous  falsehood  can  be 
conceived  than  for  a  man  to  claim  that  he  is  God  ?  And 
this  is  what  Jesus  claimed.  'Abraham,  your  father,  re- 
joiced that  he  might  see  my  day.  He  saw  it  and  was 
glad.  And  the  Jews  therefore  said  unto  him  :  Thou  art 
not  yet  fifty  years,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham  ?  Jesus 
said  to  them  :  Truly,  truly,  I  say  to  you,  before  Abraham 
was  made,  I  am  ' — John  viii.  It  needs  no  comment  to  make 
it  evident  that  such  language  could  not  be  used  by  a  mere 
man  without  his  being  guilty  of  falsehood.  Were  I  to 
say :  Before  Christopher  Columbus  was  made,  I  am,  peo- 
ple would  justly  pronounce  me  to  be  either  a  knave  or  a 
fool.     And  yet  Christopher  Columbus  has  lived  only  about 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.        I93 

three  centuries  before  my  time.  Abraham  had  lived 
nearly  two  thousand  years  before  the  mortal  career  of 
Christ.  If  He  was  a  mere  man  then  He  was  guilty  of  an 
enormous  falsehood.  But  He  was  not  only  man,  He  was 
the  Jehovah — and  He  calls  Himself  by  that  sublime 
appellation  given  of  Himself  by  Moses:  '  I  am  who  I  am.' 
Therefore  before  Abraham  was  made,  "  I  am  "  ;  before 
the  world  was  made,  '  I  am' ;  for  all  eternity,  '  I  am.' 

"  In  the  discussion  with  the  Jews  recorded  in  10th  John, 
Christ  was  challenged  by  them  to  say  who  He  was.  His 
reply  is :  '  I  and  the  Father  are  one.'  This  raised  a  storm 
of  abuse  from  the  Jewish  audience  who  accused  Christ  of 
uttering  blasphemy,  and  took  up  stones  to  hurl  at  Him. 
Were  you,  or  any  other  man,  to  go  out  into  the  streets  of 
one  of  our  large  cities,  and,  gathering  around  you  a  mul- 
titude of  people,  gravely  inform  them  that  you  and  God 
the  Father  are  one,  they  would  either  justly  accuse  you 
of  blasphemy  and  prepare  to  let  fly  at  you  ;  or,  what  is 
more  likely  to  happen  from  an  American  audience,  they 
would  unanimously  vote  you  a  candidate  for  the  lunatic 
asylum. 

"  Christ,  having  been  arrested,  was  brought  before  the 
High  Priest.  The  High  Priest  had  his  legitimate  tribunal. 
He  was  its  presiding  judge.  In  open  court,  the  judge 
asked  Christ  if  He  was  the  Son  of  the  living  God  ;  Jesus 
unhesitatingly  answers  :  '  I  am  ' — (Mark  xiv.).  The  High 
Priest  then  immediately  adjudged  Jesus  deserving  death. 
"  What  further  need  have  we  of  witnesses?  Behold  now 
ye  have  heard  the  blasphemy ' — (Mark  xiv.).  Consequently 
if  Christ  were  a  mere  man,  then  truly  He  had  blasphemed  ; 
if  He  had  blasphemed,  then  He  could  legally  be  con- 
demned to  death.  And  in  reality  it  was  on  this  charge 
that  Pilate  condemned  Jesus  to  death.      '  We  have  a  law, 


194  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

and  according  to  the  law  he  ought  to  die,  because  he 
made  himself  the  son  of  God.'  Consequently,  if  you 
believe  that  Jesus  was  merely  a  man,  you  must  acknowl- 
edge that  the  accusation  of  blasphemy  was  sustained.  If 
the  charge  of  blasphemy  could  be  sustained,  then  indeed 
Jesus  had  violated  a  law  whose  penalty  was  death,  and 
therefore  the  death  inflicted  on  Christ  was  legally  a  just 
one  There  is  no  half  way.  Christ  either  was  '  the  Word 
who  was  with  God,  and  who  was  God  '  — or  a  mere  man. 
If  a  mere  man,  He  was  guilty  of  an  infinite  falsehood  in 
claiming  for  Himself  a  divine  nature.  Consequently,  in- 
stead of  being  a  messenger  from  God  and  an  inspired 
prophet,  He  would  have  been  an  impostor. 

"  I  will  now  make  a  few  remarks  in  regard  to  your  views 
upon  Judas,  etc.  The  Holy  Bible  tells  us  that  God  fore- 
sees all  things.  You  must  not,  however,  confuse  ideas. 
Because  things  so  happen,  God  foresees  them  as  such  ;  but 
not  because  God  foresees  them  as  such  do  they  so  happen. 
His  foreseeing  them  does  not  influence  the  event  of  affairs. 
Were  you,  looking  from  a  window  of  your  house,  to  see  a 
man  stealthily  creeping  over  the  wall  of  a  yard  in  order 
to  plunder,  you  would,  unperceived  by  him,  notice  his 
actions  and  his  preparations  to  steal.  But  what  connec- 
tion has  your  seeing  all  that  he  is  about  to  do  with  the 
bad  fellow's  actions  ?  His  own  bad  will  is  the  cause  of  the 
action  which  he  is  about  to  do,  and  not  your  seeing  it. 
His  action  comes  from  his  own  free-will,  not  influenced  in 
the  slightest  by  your  seeing  what  he  is  about  to  do.  You 
see  what  he  is  about  to  do,  because  he  is  actually  about 
to  do  it.  What  an  absurdity  it  would  be  to  say  that  the 
man  in  question  is  about  to  clamber  over  the  wall  and 
plunder  because  you  look  down  and  perceive  what  he 
will  do !     And  yet  it   is  just   such  nonsense  one  is  guilty 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       I95 

of  in  daring    to    make    God's    foresight    responsible   for 
our  actions.     God   looks   upon   this  world  and  sees  what 
actions    men    are   about   to    perform ;    and    because   God 
sees  what  I  am  about  to  do,  therefore,  it  is  said,  I  am  pre- 
destined to  do  it !    We  indignantly  ask  :  What  connection 
has  God's  sight  of  your  action  with  your  action  ?     How 
is  your  action  influenced  by  His  knowledge?    Your  action 
evidently  comes  from  the  determination  of  your  own  will, 
and  not  from  the  knowledge  of  God.     Because  your  will 
has  decided   upon   this  action  therefore  God   foresees  it ; 
and  it  would  be  the  very  height  of  absurdity  to  assert  that 
you  must  act  thus  because  God  foresees  how  you  will  act. 
Every  man  is  conscious  that  he  has  a  free-will.     That  free 
will  is  eminently  in  our  own  power.     Tyrants  may  bind 
our  limbs,   scourge    the    body,   mutilate  and   defile    that 
body,  but  never  can  they  make  me,  against  my  will,  to 
sin.    A  stronger  man  than  I  might  bind  rne  ;  and  violently 
placing  a  pistol   in   my  hand,  force   my  hand,  unable  to 
resist,  to   fire  that  pistol  and   thus  slay  a  man  ;  but   no 
tribunal,  human  or  divine,  would  call  this  action  of  mine 
a   murder.     And   why?     Because   the    superior    force    of 
another    moved    my    hand,    and    not    my    own    free-will. 
Hence  we  say  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  Judas  being 
created  and   forced  to  betray  Christ.     Judas  was  a  man. 
If  a  man,  then  he  had  a  free-will.     For  who  ever  heard  of 
a  man  who  had  no  free-will?     If  he  had  a  free  will,  then 
just  as  you  and  I  can  steal  or  not,  murder  or  not,  blas- 
pheme God  or  not,  for  we  have  free-wills,  so  also  could 
Judas.     To  say  that  God  created  Judas  without   a  free- 
will, is,  without  a  shadow  of  proof,  to  declare  that  Judas 
was  some  kind  of  a  nondescript  brute,  but  not  a  rational 
being.     To  say  that   God   created   and    forced   Judas  to 
execute  the  dirty  act,  is  to  make  the  thrice  Holy  God  as 


I96  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

much  the  really  guilty  one  as  the  man  who  would  ravish 
a  helpless  and  resisting  virgin. 

"But  you  object,  'if  Judas  was  a  free  agent  capable 
of  doing  what  he  wished,  then  the  whole  of  God's 
scheme  of  salvation  was  in  imminent  danger  of  miscarry- 
ing.' You  forget.  The  betrayal  of  Jesus  by  Judas  did 
not  accomplish  our  salvation  ;  nor  was  it  at  all  necessary 
to  it.  How  then  have  we  been  redeemed  ?  By  the  death 
of  Jesus.  Will  you  say  that  God  had  only  one  way  by 
which  this  sacrifice  of  Christ  might  have  been  accom- 
plished? Why,  a  man  of  ordinary  wisdom  will  find  a 
dozen  ways  of  accomplishing  a  desired  end.  You  will, 
doubtless,  concede  as  much  to  Him  who  possesses  infinite 
wisdom.  A  skilful  general  looking  down  from  a  lofty 
eminence  sees  the  plans,  and  tricks,  and  ambuscades  which 
the  enemy  is  preparing.  Is  it  not  justly  regarded  as  the 
very  apex  of  military  skill  if  the  general  will  accomplish 
the  defeat  of  the  enemy  by  the  very  plans,  tricks,  and 
ambuscades  which  he  had  prepared?  A  skilful  pleader 
considers  it  the  acme  of  brilliancy  if  he  can  take  up  the 
very  line  of  his  opponent's  reasoning,  and  hurl  back  argu- 
ment after  argument  of  it  for  his  opponent's  crushing 
defeat.  I  trust  you  will  admit  as  much  to  Uncreated 
Wisdom  Himself.  God  has  made  us  all  free.  I  may  use 
that  freedom  to  keep  God's  commandments ;  and  I  may 
use  it  to  steal,  murder,  and  violate  His  law.  But  God, 
like  the  skilful  general,  takes  the  very  machinations  of 
His  enemies  and  uses  them  to  further  His  own  plans. 
Hence  it  is  said  so  often  in  the  Holy  Bible, '  omnia  serviunt 
Tibi ' — '  all  things  serve  Thee.'  As  a  skilful  physician  uses 
the  bloodthirsty  leech,  ay,  even  the  most  deadly  poisons, 
for  accomplishing  his  own  charitable  purposes— so  the 
infinitely' wise  God  takes  those  sinners  who,  by  the  act  of 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 97 

their  own  free-will  have  become  such,  and  uses  them  for 
attaining  His  end,  the  salvation.  Judas  was  called  to  the 
glorious  dignity  of  the  Apostolate  by  the  same  God-man 
who  called  Peter,  John,  and  Andrew.  Just  as  I  and  any 
other  bishop  might  betray  the  cause  of  God,  and  the  fault 
would  be  all  our  own,  so  Judas  was  a  traitor  to  the  still 
higher  dignity  of  the  apostolate  ;  and  the  fault  is  all  his 
own,  and  not  God's.  That  God  made  use  of  Judas' 
treacherous  act  in  accomplishing  His  own  designs,  we  do 
but  see  His  wisdom  herein  imitated  by  the  skilful  general, 
wise  advocate,  and  charitable  physician.  Evidently  the 
infinite  wisdom  of  God  had  at  hand  countless  ways  for 
bringing  about  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  which  alone 
the  world  has  been  redeemed.  To  say,  therefore,  that  had 
not  Judas  sinned,  '  God's  plan  of  salvation  would  have 
been  in  imminent  danger  of  miscarrying  '—is  evidently,  on 
the  part  of  a  finite  intellect,  to  forget.  This  simple  ex- 
position shows  that  we  are  not  placed  in  the  dilemma  of 
denying  either  the  divinity  of  Christ,  or  a  free-will  to 
Judas." 

Then  follows  the  Bishop's  challenge,  in  response  to  my 
remarks  about  dogmas,  which  has  already  been  given 
(Prop.  III.),  and  which  closes  his  first  paper. 

The  first  point  to  which  the  Bishop  addresses  himself 
is  my  statement  that  "  Jesus  was  clearly  avoiding  arrest," 
and  he  cites  me  to  the  Gospel  accounts  to  prove  the  con- 
trary. I  must  confess  I  hardly  expected  that  what  seemed 
so  very  obvious  a  fact  would  be  seriously  controverted. 
I  would  have  supposed  that  the  fact  would  have  been 
admitted  and  explained,  on  the  theory  of  the  dual  nature, 
by  saying  that  the  God  was  ready  and  willing  for  the  sac- 
rifice, but  that  the  man  was  weak,  and  trying  to  postpone. 


I98  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

Be  that  as  it  may,  however,  the  very  word  "  betray  "  tells 
the  whole  story  whatever  the  Apostles,  and  those  who 
may  have  added  to  their  statements,  may  have  written 
since  the  happening  of  the  event. 

The  assertion  is  that  Judas  betrayed  Jesus.  Webster  s 
Dictionary  (quarto,  title  "  Betray  ")  gives  the  definitions, 
which  are  sustained  by  the  derivation  of  the  word,  by 
common  consent,  and,  I  think,  by  the  sense  in  which  the 
Bishop  uses  the  word  when  he  attaches  guilt  to  it  : 

I.   To  deliver  into  the  hands  of  an  enemy,   by  treachery,   or  fraud,  in 

violation  of  a  trust. 
II.   To  violate  by  fraud  or  unfaithfulness. 
III.   To   violate   confidence  by   disclosing  a  secret,  or   that  which   was 

intrusted. 
IV.   To  disclose,  to  permit  to  appear,  what  is  intended  to  be  kept  secret. 

Under  these  definitions,  so  far,  Judas,  if  he  betrayed  Jesus, 
must  have  delivered  him  to  his  enemies  when  Jesus  trusted 
that  he  would  not,  or  there  could  have  been  no  violation 
of  a  trust ;  or  he  must  have  disclosed  that  which  Jesus 
desired,  or  intended,  should  be  kept  secret. 

V.   To  mislead  or  expose  to  inconvenience  not  foreseen. 

If  Jesus  foresaw  (and  not  to  foresee  is  to  be  not  God), 
he  was  not  betrayed  under  this  definition. 

VI.   To  show  ;  to  disclose  ;  to  indicate  what  is  not  obvious  at  first  view, 
or  would  otherwise  be  concealed. 

In  this  sense  to  betray  carries  no  idea  of  guilt. 

VII.   To  fail,  or  deceive. 

If  Judas  failed  Jesus,  Jesus  was  deceived.  Can  God  be 
deceived  ?  If  not,  then  he  (if  God)  was  not  betrayed  under 
this  definition. 

Finally,  if  the  above  definition  be  correct,  and  Jesus  was 
"betrayed"  in   that   sense,   he  was  avoiding  arrest,   not 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       1 99 

necessarily  flying  to  remote  distances,  but  going  to  a  place 
where  he  thought  he  would  be  safe,  only  to  be  disappointed 
through  the  treachery  of  Judas  ;  in  which  case  the  portions 
of  the  Gospel  on  which  the  Bishop  relies  must  be  mis- 
translations, subsequent  additions,  or  otherwise  inexact. 
Or,  if  they  be  correct,  let  us  cease  saying  that  Judas 
"  betrayed  "  Jesus,  and  seek  some  other  word  which  will 
not  carry  such  inconvenient  ideas  with  it. 

It  may  be  claimed,  however,  and  with  great  truth,  as  the 
intention  is  the  essence  of  a  crime,  that  although  Jesus 
knew  what  Judas  was  about  to  do,  and  hence  was  not 
"  betrayed  "  under  the  definitions  given  above,  yet  if  Judas 
intended  to  betray,  his  crime  was  complete  even  though 
foreseen  by  Jesus.  This  I  admit.  But  this  view  strengthens 
the  other  branch  of  the  dilemma — that  is,  that,  if  Jesus 
was  God,  Judas  was  a  mere  instrument  in  the  hands  of  a 
superior  and  irresistible  power.  For,  as  God  is  omnipotent 
and  omniscient,  it  follows,  necessarily,  that  He  knew  when 
He  selected  Judas  as  His  disciple,  exactly  what  he  (Judas) 
would  do.  And  as  no  one  who  agrees  with  the  Church,  or 
admires  Jesus  as  I  do,  would  for  a  moment  believe  him 
guilty  of  employing  unnecessary  theatrical  effects,  it  must 
be  conclusively  presumed  that  the  drama  of  the  betrayal 
was  performed  for  a  purpose,  and  that  purpose  a  necessary 
one.  And  as,  surely,  God  would  never  have  undertaken 
any  scheme  unless  it  was  the  best  possible,  and  it  was 
evidently  a  part  of  his  scheme  that  he  should  be  delivered 
up  by  Judas,  he  would  never  have  adopted  a  plan  which 
depended  on  what  he  foresaw  Judas  might  do,  but  only 
on  what  he  knew  he  would  do  ;  and  if  he  knew  he  would 
do  it,  he  knew  he  could  not  change,  on  account  of  the 
power  of  God  exerted,  directly,  or  indirectly  through  the 
disposition  and  character  which  God  had  created  him  with, 


200  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

on  his  mind.  And  Judas  must  have  been  a  necessary  and 
helpless  actor  in  the  drama  without  reference  to  his  in- 
dividual thoughts  or  intentions. 

I  cite  two  passages  in  point  from  An  Analysis  of  Reli- 
gious Belief,  by  Viscount  Amberly,  the  first  from  p.  214: 

"The  efforts  of  the  Chief  Priests  to  bring  about  his  destruction  are  de- 
scribed in  two  of  our  Gospels  as  the  direct  result  of  his  proceedings  about  the 
temple,  the  impression  he  had  made  on  the  multitude  being  a  further  induce- 
ment (Matt,  xi.,18,  Lukexix.,  48).  Aware  of  the  indignation  he  had  excited, 
Jesus,  soon  after  these  events,  retired  into  some  private  place,  known  only 
to  his  more  intimate  friends.  So,  at  least,  I  understand  the  story  of  the  be- 
trayal. Either  Judas  never  betrayed  him  at  all,  or  he  was  lurking  in  con- 
cealment somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem.  That  the  conduct 
attributed  to  Judas  should  be  a  pure  invention  appears  to  me  so  improbable, 
more  especially  when  the  history  of  the  election  of  a  new  apostle  is  taken  into 
account,  that  I  am  forced  to  choose  the  latter  alternative.  The  representa- 
tion of  the  Gospels  that  Jesus  went  on  teaching  in  public  to  the  end  of  his 
career,  and  yet  that  Judas  received  a  bribe  for  his  betrayal,  is  self-contradic- 
tory. The  facts  appear  to  be  that  Jesus  ate  the  Passover  at  Jerusalem  with 
his  disciples,  and  that  immediately  after  it,  conscious  of  growing  danger,  he 
retired  to  some  hidden  spot  where  he  had  lived  before,  and  where  friends 
alone  were  admitted  to  his  company.  Judas  informed  the  authorities  of  the 
temple  where  this  spot  was.  They  thereupon  apprehended  Jesus,  and 
brought  him  before  the  Sanhedrim  for  trial." 

The  second  is  from  p.  259,  where,  after  giving  the  several 
and  varying  accounts  of  the  Last  Supper,  it  is  said  : 

"  The  improbability  of  these  stories  is  obvious.  In  the  three  first,  Judas 
is  pointed  out  to  all  the  eleven  as  a  man  who  is  about  to  give  up  their  leader 
to  punishment,  and  probable  death,  yet  no  step  was  taken  or  even  suggested, 
by  any  of  them  to  either  impede  the  false  disciple  in  his  movements,  or  to 
save  Jesus  by  flight  or  concealment.  The  announcement  is  taken  as  quietly 
as  if  it  were  an  every-day  occurrence  that  was  referred  to. 

"  John's  narrative  avoids  this  difficulty  by  supposing  the  intimation  that 
Judas  was  the  man,  to  be  conveyed  by  a  private  signal  understood  only  by 
Peter  and  the  disciple  next  to  Jesus.  These  two  may  have  felt  it  necessary  to 
keep  the  secret,  but  why  could  they  not  understand  the  words  of  Jesus  to 
Judas,  or  why  not  enquire  whether  they  had  reference  to  his  treachery,  which 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       201 

had  just  before  been  so  plainly  intimated  ?  That  Jesus,  with  his  keen 
vision,  may  have  divined  the  proceedings  of  Judas,  is  quite  possible  ;  that  he 
could  have  spoken  of  them  in  this  open  way  without  exciting  more  attention, 
is  hardly  credible." 

The  Bishop  says  that  in  adducing  Jesus'  prayer  that,  if 
possible,  the  cup  might  pass  from  him,  as  another  evidence 
that  he  was  avoiding  arrest,  I  "  forgot  to  state  that  to 
these  words  Jesus  immediately  added,  '  but  not  what  I 
will  but  what  thou  wilt.'  "  These  added  words  do  not 
affect  the  point  at  issue ;  and  were  not  cited  because  un- 
necessary to  my  then  purpose.  Had  I  been  seeking,  at 
that  particular  time  and  in  that  particular  argument,  to 
show  that  Jesus  was  not  God,  those  words  would  have 
been  appropriate  (as  we  have  seen  when  discussing  the 
divinity  of  Jesus),  for  they  very  plainly  show  that  Jesus 
did  not  consider  himself  and  God  as  one,  as  he  uses  very 
different  pronouns  to  distinguish  the  one  from  the  other, 
and  distinctly  asserts  that  he  has  one  will,  and  God 
another,  and  that  they  were  antagonistic,  but  that,  like 
the  true  devotee  he  was,  having  but  one  object  in  life — 
to  do  what  his  Father  wished— (I  use  the  word  "  Father  " 
in  its  spiritual  application,  as  I  believe  Jesus  did) — he  was 
ready  to  submit  his  will  to  his  God's,  and  meet  a  martyr's 
fate  if  such  were  really  God's  will ;  but,  at  the  same  time, 
in  the  absence  of  any  precise  knowledge  of  what  that  will 
was,  he  would  keep  out  of  the  way  as  far  as  he  could  : 
for  if  he  had  had  precise  information  as  to  the  fact  that 
it  was  God's  decree  that  he  should  suffer  as  he  did  (and 
if  he  were  God  he  would  have  known  definitely),  Jesus 
was  not  the  man  to  beg  off. 

As  to  the  Bishop's  assertion  that  Jesus  was  either  God, 
or  an  impostor,  I  have  already  considered  the  point,  and 
need   only  say  here  that   the  Bishop   does   not    seem    to 


202  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

realize  that  there  may  be  a  third  proposition — he  may 
have  had  thrust  upon  him,  since  his  death,  honors  which 
he  not  only  never  coveted,  but  which,  had  he  foreseen 
them,  he  would  have  been  prompt  to  reject. 

The  next  branch  of  the  Bishop's  argument  may  be 
summarized  thus:  God  foresees  things  because  they  so 
happen,  they  do  not  so  happen  because  He  foresees  them. 
I  must  not  confuse  ideas.  If  I  from  my  window  saw  a 
thief  preparing  to  steal,  my  seeing  would  have  nothing  to 
do  with  his  theft,  and,  so,  God's  seeing,  or  foreseeing, 
events  has  no  effect  on  them.  That  to  suppose  otherwise 
is  "  nonsense."  That  all  men  have  free-will,  and  every 
man  is  conscious  of  it.  That  Judas  was  a  man  and,  there- 
fore, had  free-will.  That  the  betrayal  was  not  necessary 
to  our  salvation,  because  Ave  are  redeemed  by  the  death 
of  Jesus,  which  God  could  have  brought  about  in  any  of  a 
variety  of  ways.  Then  follows  a  comparison  of  God  to  a 
skilful  general  who  uses  the  machinations  of  his  enemies 
to  forward  his  own  plans  ;  to  a  skilful  pleader  who  uses 
the  argument  of  his  opponent  for  his  opponent's  defeat. 
That  as  the  physician  will  use  deadly  poisons  to  accom- 
plish his  charitable  purposes,  so  God  uses  the  wilful  sins 
of  men  as  a  means  to  attain  His  ends  ;  and  he  concludes 
that  therefore  it  is  unnecessary  to  deny  either  the  divinity 
of  Jesus,  or  the  free-will  of  Judas. 

Is  not  this  argument  a  most  remarkable  one  ?  Yet  it 
is,  I  believe,  one  which  all  Christian  Churchmen  use. 

One  of  the  leading  objections  which  I  have  to  dog- 
matic Christianity  is  that  it  tends  to  humanize  God,  to 
deify  man  ;  that  it,  for  that  purpose,  seizes  upon  some 
one  attribute,  or  text,  or  set  of  texts,  from  which  to  de- 
duce a  creed  utterly  inconsistent  with  other  attributes,  or 


.     THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       203 

texts,  and  then  strains  faith  and  stifles  reason  in  its  efforts 
to  reconcile  its  own  inconsistencies. 

Thus,  when  the  Bishop  compares  God  to  the  general, 
the  pleader,  the  physician,  is  he  not  humanizing  God  ? 
When  he  says,  in  substance,  that  I  would  not  be  respon- 
sible for  what  I  saw  from  my  window,  and,  similarly,  that 
God  is  not  responsible  for  what  He  sees  from  heaven,  is 
not  this  still  further  humanizing  Him?  bringing  Him,  by 
a  comparison,  down  to  the  level  of  man  ?  If  he  possessed 
vision  and  prevision  alone,  the  argument  would  be  good  : 
but  to  Him  are  attributed  also  omniscience  and  omnipo- 
tence, and  that  entirely  alters  the  case.  Had  I  made  the 
thief  and  given  him,  by  creation,  the  disposition  to  do 
wrong  stronger  than  the  disposition  to  do  right,  and,  in 
addition,  had  the  power,  by  the  mere  exercise  of  my 
will,  to  prevent  the  theft  which  I  knew  he  was  about  to 
commit,  and  I  did  not,  by  all  laws,  human  and  divine,  I 
would  be  particeps  criminis,  and  as  guilty  as  he  ;  and, 
morally,  this  would  be  equally  true  if  I  had  had  nothing 
to  do  with  his  character  and  disposition,  but  merely  saw 
him  about  to  commit  a  crime,  and  could  have  prevented 
it  by  the  mere  exercise  of  volition,  without  danger, 
trouble,  or  inconvenience  to  myself. 

And  if  the  Bishop's  simile  is  a  good  one,  the  legitimate 
conclusion  is  that  God  would  be  also. 

We  are  taught  that  God  is  omnipresent,  omnipotent, 
omniscient;  that  without  Him  nothing  exists,  or  can 
exist;  that  He  created  man  ;  that  He  made  man's  soul, 
man's  mind,  man's  will ;  but  the  Church  says  He  emanci- 
pated the  will,  and  the  Bishop  says  every  man  knows  it. 
I  think  not,  and  I  have  given  my  reasons  in  full  elsewhere, 
together  with  the  Church's  argument  (Prop.  II.).  But, 
right  or  wrong,  the  Church  insists  that  every  man  has  free- 


204  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

will,  is  a  free  agent,  is,  in  this  one  particular,  independent 
of  his  God  ;  that,  by  this  royal  attribute,  man  can 
thwart  God's  plans,  grieve  God's  heart.  Is  not  this  ele- 
vating man  at  the  cost  of  lowering  God  ?  And,  as  if  this 
were  not  enough,  we  must  pull  God  still  farther  down  to 
our  level,  try  to  make  him  in  our  image — an  exaggerated 
man, — attribute  to  Him  anger,  hate,  jealousy,  fickleness, 
repentance,  favoritism,  nearly  all  of  the  faults  and  weak- 
nesses of  poor  humanity,  and  seek  to  justify  ourselves  by 
saying,  on  the  authority  of  the  Jewish  Bible,  that  God 
has  so  portrayed  Himself. 

The  Bishop  expresses  some  indignation  at  the  idea  that 
God's  foresight  should  make  Him  responsible  for  man's 
acts  (and  I  had  taken  no  such  position,  but  argued  as  to 
all  His  attributes  at  once)  ;  I  think  I  may  be  pardoned  if 
I  feel  somewhat  indignant  at  having  the  crude  ideas  of  a 
semi-barbarous  race,  as  to  the  attributes  of  divinity,  of- 
fered to  a  comparatively  enlightened  civilization  as  the 
measure  of  a  God. 

And  this  is  why  I  characterize  the  argument  as  remark- 
able ;  for  it  can  never  cease  to  be  a  matter  of  surprise  to 
me  that  the  Church  will  persist  in  making  arguments 
which,  if  carried  to  their  logical  conclusions,  cannot  fail  to 
deprive  God  of  His  absolute  supremacy. 

I  give  the  Bishop's  final  reply  : 

"  In  your  first  paper  you  asserted  that  '  Jesus  was  clearly 
avoiding  arrest.'  I  denied  the  assertion,  and  brought  the 
history  of  Christ's  arrest  to  prove  that  He  did  not  avoid 
arrest,  but  freely  permitted  it.  In  your  last  paper  you 
say:  '  I  must  confess  I  hardly  expected  that  what  seemed 
so  very  obvious  a  fact  would  be  seriously  controverted.' 
This  may  all  be  strange  to  you.     But  if    it  is  '  so  very 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       205 

obvious  a  fact,'  is  it  not  still  stranger  that  the  millions  of 
Christians  forming  the  most  enlightened  peoples  that  have 
ever  trod   the  world    do    now  believe,  and  always    have 
believed,  as  I  do  on  this  subject  ?     Although  it  is  'so  very 
obvious  a  fact,'  yet  the  historical  facts  in  the  case  establish 
so   unanswerably  that   Christ   did   not   flee  from  or  shun 
arrest,  but   permitted   Himself  to   be   given  over  to  the 
power  of  His  enemies,  that  you  fall  back  upon  a  novel 
line  of  argument.     For  you  assert  that  the  definition  of 
the  word  '  betray,'  as  given  by  Webster  necessarily  implies 
that  Christ  avoided  arrest.     Consequently  the  historical 
facts  bearing  on  the  case  are  either  interpolations,  or  '  let 
us  cease  saying  that  Judas  betrayed  Jesus,  and  seek  some 
other  word.'     There  are  many  words  in  language  whose 
definitions  necessarily  imply  correlative  ideas.     We  cannot 
say  that  a  man  is  a  widower  without  implying  the  idea 
that  his  wife  is  dead.     If  we   say  of  a  man  that  he  is  a 
husband,  we  necessarily  imply  that  he  has  a  wife.     We 
speak  of  an  altar,  sacrifice  is  necessarily  implied.     Do  you 
wish  to  say  that  the  idea  of  avoiding,  shunning,  and  flee- 
ing from   the   danger  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  use  of 
the  word   '  betray  '  ?     So,  even  as  one  speaks  to  me  of  a 
widow,  the  idea  of  a  husband  deceased  is  necessarily  im- 
plied.    It  would  destroy  the  definition  of  '  widow  '  were 
she  one  whose  husband  is  still  living.     Do  you  seriously 
wish  to  assert  that  so  soon  as  one  tells  me  of  a  betrayal, 
the  idea  of  a  victim  avoiding  arrest  and  trying  to  escape 
is  necessarily  implied  ?     Do  you  wish  to  say  that  we  can- 
not think  of  a  betrayal  without  at  the  same  time  thinking 
of  the  victim's  avoiding  and  fleeing  the  betrayal  ?     In  that 
case  the  victim  who  would  be  delivered  up  while  asleep 
or  intoxicated  would  not  be  betrayed — because  it  can  be 
established   that   being    under  the   influence   of  sleep   or 


206  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

liquor  the  victim  was  not  avoiding  and  fleeing  from  arrest, 
and  therefore  there  is  no  betrayal.  Your  appeal  to  Web- 
ster is  particularly  unfortunate.  First  of  all  there  is  noth- 
ing in  his  definition  from  top  to  bottom  which  makes  the 
idea  of  the  victim's  fleeing  arrest  essentially  connected 
with  the  notion  of  betrayal.  Secondly,  you  quote  Webster 
as  defining  betray  to  be  :  '  To  deliver  into  the  hands  of  an 
enemy  .  .  .  in  violation  of  a  trust.'  In  the  edition  of 
Webster  (unabridged)  of  1855  and  in  the  one  of  1877  the 
reading  is  in  'violation  of  trust.'  There  is  evidently  a 
great  difference  between  '  violation  of  trust ' — and  '  viola- 
tion of  a  trust.'  The  native-born  who  would  mislead  his 
fatherland,  the  child  who  would  sell  his  parent,  or  the  dis- 
ciple who  would  deliver  his  master,  would  violate  trust. 
For  such  mutual  relations  imply  trust,  though  a  specific 
trust  has  not  been  confided  by  one  party  to  the  other. 

"  And  this  constituted  the  act  of  Judas  a  betrayal  in  the 
dictionary  definition  of  the  word.  For  he  being  a  disci- 
ple of  Jesus  was  guilty  of  a  'violation  of  trust,'  to  deliver 
his  own  master  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies  so  faithlessly. 
Hence  Webster  (edition  1877)  says  :  '  To  deliver  into  the 
hands  of  an  enemy  by  treachery  or  fraud  in  violation  of 
trust ;  to  give  up  treacherously  or  faithlessly  ; — "  Jesus  said 
unto  them,  the  Son  of  Man  shall  be  betrayed  into  the 
hands  of  men." 

"  Thus  Webster — the  very  authority  to  which  you  ap- 
peal— from  the  force  of  historical  facts — quotes,  in  the  mo- 
ment of  defining  the  requisites  to  constitute  a  '  betrayal,' 
our  case  of  Judas  as  one  having  all  the  elements  of  a  true 
betrayal.  Hence,  sir,  I  said  that  your  reference  to 
Webster  s  Dictionary  is  particularly  unfortunate  for  your 
cause. 

"  You  have  made  several  quotations  from  the  work  of 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       20J 

Viscount  Amberly.  You  speak  of  it  in  terms  of  unquali- 
fied praise. 

"  I  do  not  wish  to  wound  your  feelings,  but  judging  from 
the  choice  flowers  of  his  work  which  you  have  culled  and 
wreathed  into  your  second  paper  to  me,  I  pronounce  it  to 
be  an  utterly  unreliable  book — unworthy  of  a  gentleman's 
consideration.  For  you  quote  the  Viscount  as  saying: 
1  The  representation  of  the  Gospel  that  Jesus  went  on 
teaching  in  public  to  the  very  end  of  his  career,  and  yet 
that  Judas  received  a  bribe  for  his  betrayal,  is  self-contra- 
dictory.' 

"  The  Viscount  here  garbles  the  '  representations  of  the 
Gospels.'  The  Gospels  represent  Jesus  as  being  exceed- 
ingly popular  with  the  masses  of  the  people.  Their  love, 
admiration,  and  devotion,  they  frequently  expressed.  On 
one  occasion,  many,  very  many,  of  them  wished  to  force 
Jesus,  in  spite  of  Himself,  to  be  their  king.1  The  trium- 
phal entry  of  Christ  into  Jerusalem,  when  they  strewed  the 
way  with  palm  branches  and  their  very  garments,  and  made 
the  air  resonant  with  their  loud  canticles  in  His  honor, 
proves  this.  But  Jesus,  intensely  loved  by  the  majority 
of  the  people,  was  intensely  hated  by  the  Chief  Priests 
and  the  generality  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  whose 
hypocrisy  and  other  vices  He  severely  rebuked.  This 
being  the  case,  what  is  more  natural  than  to  suppose  that 
if  the  Chief  Priests,  etc.,  attempted  to  seize  upon  Jesus 
while  addressing  the  immense  throng  that  ordinarily 
listened  with  intense  pleasure  to  his  beautiful  discourses, 
there  would  be  a  riot,  bloodshed,  and  finally  a  failure  of 

1  If  this  be  true,  then  very  evidently  these  people  did  not  look  upon  Jesus 
as  God,  for  they  sought  to  honor  him,  and  even  such  ignorant  barbarians 
could  hardly  have  supposed  it  would  be  a  promotion  to  make  the  God  of 
the  Universe  the  king  of  a  tribe. — W.  D.  H. 


208  ,  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

their  attempt  ?  What  more  natural  than  their  desire  to 
seek  some  occasion  of  seizing  him  by  fraud  and  treachery, 
and  when  the  crowds  of  delighted  people  would  not  be 
about?  And  this  is  just  the  account  given  by  the  Gos- 
pels. '  And  the  Chief  Priests  and  the  Scribes  sought  how 
they  might  by  some  wile  lay  hold  on  him  and  kill  him. 
But  they  said,  Not  on  the  festival  day  lest  there  should  be 
a  tumult  among  the  people' — Mark  xiv.  '  Then  were 
gathered  together  the  Chief  Priests  and  ancients  of  the 
people  into  the  Court  of  the  High  Priest  who  was  called 
Caiaphas,  and  they  consulted  together  that  by  subtilty 
they  might  apprehend  Jesus  and  put  him  to  death' — Matt, 
xxvi.  '  And  the  Chief  Priests  and  the  Scribes  sought 
how  they  might  put  Jesus  to  death,  but  they  feared  the 
people.  .  .  .  And  he  [Judas]  sought  an  opportunity  to 
betray  him  in  the  absence  of  the  multitude' — Luke  xxii. 
'  And  they  were  glad  and  covenanted  to  give  him  money. 
And  he  promised' — Luke  xxii.  And  this  account  Viscount 
Amberly  calls  '  self-contradictory  '  ! 

"  You  again  quote  Viscount  Amberly  as  saying  :  '  In  the 
three  first  [Gospels]  Judas  is  pointed  out  to  all  the  eleven 
as  a  man  who  is  about  to  give  up  their  master  to  punish- 
ment. .  .  .  The  announcement  is  taken  as  quietly  as  if  it 
were  an  every-day  occurrence  that  was  referred  to.'  In  this 
quotation  Viscount  Amberly  asserts,  first,  that  Judas  is 
pointed  out  to  all  the  eleven  as  the  man  about  to  perpetrate 
the  vile  deed  ;  secondly,  this  announcement  is  taken  by  the 
rest  as  if  an  ordinary  occurrence  was  declared  to  them. 
The  Gospel  account  tells  us  something  else  altogether.  It 
tells  us  that  Christ  said  at  the  Last  Supper  in  the  clearest 
manner  that :  I  st ;  He  was  about  to  be  betrayed  :  2d  ;  that  a 
disciple  would  do  the  foul  deed.  Nowhere,  however,  does 
he  mention  the  name  of  the  traitor.     He  referred  in  such 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.       209 

an  obscure  way  to  the  person  who  would  betray  Him,  that 
while  the  guilty  conscience  would  make  him  understand, 
the  others  did  not  perceive  to  whom  Christ  had  reference. 
'And  while  they  were  eating:  Amen,  I  say  to  you  that 
one  of  you  is  about  to  betray  me.  And  they  being  very 
much  troubled  began  every  one  to  say,  Is  it  I,  Lord? 
But  he  answering  said — He  that  dippeth  his  hand  in  the 
dish,  he  shall  betray  me' — Matt.  xxvi.  '  And  when  they 
were  at  table  and  eating,  Jesus  saith  :  Amen,  I  say  to  you, 
One  of  you  that  eateth  with  me  shall  betray  me.  But 
they  began  to  be  sorrowful,  and  say  to  him  one  by  one, 
Is  it  I  ?  Who  saith  to  them  :  One  of  the  twelve  who  dippeth 
his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish  shall  betray  me  ' — Mark 
xiv.  '  But  yet  behold  the  hand  of  him  who  betrayeth 
me  is  with  me  on  the  table.  And  they  began  to  inquire 
among  themselves  which  of  them  it  was  that  should  do 
this  thing  ' — Luke  xxii.  '  Amen,  amen,  I  say  to  you  that 
one  of  you  shall  betray  me.  The  disciples  therefore  looked 
upon  one  another,  doubting  of  whom  he  spoke.  Now 
there  was  leaning  on  Jesus'  bosom  one  of  the  disciples 
whom  Jesus  loved.  Simon  Peter  beckoned  therefore  to 
him  and  said  to  him,  Who  is  it  of  whom  he  speaketh  ?  He 
therefore  leaning  on  the  breast  of  Jesus  saith  to  him, 
Lord,  who  is  it  ?  And  Jesus  answered :  he  it  is  to  whom 
I  shall  reach  bread  dipped.  And  when  he  had  dipped 
the  bread  he  gave  it  to  Judas  Iscariot,  the  son  of  Simon. 
And  after  the  morsel  Satan  entered  into  him,  and  Jesus 
said  to  him  :  That  which  thou  doest,  do  quickly.  Now  no 
man  at  table  knew  he  had  said  this  unto  him,'  etc., — John 
xiii. 

"  I  have  quoted  thus  the  Gospel  account,  the  mere  pe- 
rusal of  which  will  show  the  most  superficial  observer  how 
utterly  Viscount  Amberly  perverts  and  misstates  this  scene. 


2IO  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

Judas  is  not,  as  Viscount  Amberly  asserts,  clearly  pointed 
out  to  the  twelve  as  the  one  about  to  betray  Christ.  Not 
only  Christ  nowhere  mentions  his  name,  but  the  mere  fact 
that  each  anxiously  inquires  to  find  out  who  was  the 
guilty  traitor,  is  ample  refutation  of  Viscount  Amberly's 
unwarranted  assertion  that  '  Judas  was  pointed  out  to 
all  the  eleven  as  the  man  who  is  about  to  give  up  their 
master  to  punishment.'  That  Peter  found  it  necessary 
to  inquire  of  John  and  John  had  to  inquire  of  Christ  Him- 
self, flings  to  the  ground  the  brazen  assertion  of  Viscount 
Amberly.  His  other  charge  is  equally  false:  'The  an- 
nouncement is  taken  as  quietly  as  if  it  were  an  every-day 
occurrence.'  For  the  Gospels  tell  us  that  no  sooner  did 
Christ  announce  that  one  of  them  was  about  to  betray 
Him,  than — '  contristati  sunt  valde  ' — and  they  were 
saddened  extremely! 

"  So  much  for  the  veracious  Viscount  Amberly's  un- 
founded assertion  that  Christ  pointed  out  Judas  to  ALL  at 
table  as  the  black-hearted  traitor,  and  that  the  disciples 
took  the  announcement  as  quietly  as  an  every-day  occur- 
rence." 

The  Bishop  thinks  it  strange  that  I  should  consider  the 
fact  that  Jesus  was  avoiding  arrest  as  an  obvious  one,  be- 
cause so  many  "  millions  of  Christians,  forming  the  most 
enlightened  people  that  have  ever  trod  the  world,  do  now 
believe,  and  always  have  believed,  the  contrary." 

I  have  already  noticed  this  class  of  argument,  and  can 
only  here  repeat  that  truth  cannot  be  distinguished  from 
error  with  any  degree  of  certainty,  by  merely  ascertain- 
ing the  number  of  those  who  believe  it.  Minorities  are 
as  often  right  as  majorities,  and  both  may  be  wrong. 

As  a  specimen  of  an  equally  illogical  class  of  theologi- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       211 

cal  argument,  I  have  given  the  Bishop's  remarks  upon 
what  he  ought  to  have  known  was  a  clerical  error,  my  in- 
serting "a"  before  "  trust  "  in  Webster's  Definition  L,  of 
"  betray  "  ;  and,  for  that  purpose,  have  left  the  error  in 
my  argument. 

The  argument  on  my  side  is  stronger  with  the  article 
left  out,  as  we  will  see.  The  Bishop's  distinction  between 
"violation  of  trust"  and  "violation  of  a  trust,"  while 
true,  is  sophistically  used  ;  the  distinction  exists  only 
literally,  and  not  in  the  spirit.  If  the  trust  arises  from  an 
especial  confidence  in  a  particular  instance,  it  would  be 
"  a  "  trust,  and  its  violation  would  be  a  betrayal,  because 
a  violation  of  confidence  reposed  ;  if  the  trust  arises  from 
the  relations,  whether  natural  or  assumed,  between  the 
parties,  and  is  general,  not  special,  that  would  be  "  trust " 
generally,  and  its  violation  would  equally  be  a  betrayal, 
because  equally  a  violation  of  confidence  reposed.  Prac- 
tically the  letter  makes  no  difference  ;  I  say  that  its 
absence  would  have  suited  me  better  because,  as  the 
Bishop  admits,  the  relation  existing  between  Jesus  and 
Judas  of  itself  implied *trust,  showed  that  Jesus  relied  on 
him,  trusted  him  generally,  and  consequently  it  would 
have  been  unnecessary  to  establish  any  special  trust  in 
this  specific  instance.  And  if  Jesus,  on  account  of  this 
relation  of  teacher  and  disciple  (or  whatever  the  Church  may 
prefer  to  call  it),  trusted,  in  a  general  way,  that  he  was 
safe  from  the  treachery  of  Judas,  his  betrayal  was  at  least 
as  great  a  violation  of  trust  as  if  such  trust  had  been 
specially  limited,  less  complete. 

When  the  Church  is  reduced  to  such  an  argument  as  the 
Bishop  has  made  on  this  point,  and  made  seriously,  it 
looks  as  if  she  were  in  extremis,  or  else  in  reality  had 
sacrificed  her  intellect  to  her  faith. 


212  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

To  have  quoted  Webster's  illustration  of  the  word, 
given  under  Definition  L,  and  quoted  by  the  Bishop  with 
approval,  would  have  been  unfair.  I  believed  the  Bishop 
and  his  Church  used  the  word  in  that  sense  ;  I  knew  that 
Protestants  did.  But  I  felt  that  I  had  no  right  to  de- 
fine his  belief,  and  preferred  that  he  should  do  that  for 
himself ;  he,  however,  has  now  adopted  the  illustration 
and  that  acceptance  of  that  use  of  the  word  is  the  end  of 
the  argument  ;  for  I  do  mean,  seriously,  to  say  that  the 
word  "  betray,"  when  used  in  this  sense,  that  is,  "  to 
deliver  up  into  the  hands  of  an  enemy  by  treachery  or 
fraud,  in  violation  of  trust,"  does  necessarily  imply  that 
the  person  or  persons  betrayed  was  or  were  avoiding 
arrest.  The  Bishop  insists  on  making  me  say  "  fleeing." 
He  is  unfair.  I  had  said  very  plainly  "  avoiding  arrest, 
not  necessarily  flying  to  remote  distances,  but  going  to  a 
place  where  he  thought  he  would  be  safe,  only  to  be  dis- 
appointed through  the  treachery  of  Judas."  When  one 
is  avoiding  arrest  and,  thinking  himself  in  a  safe  place,  feels 
no  anxiety,  and  so  goes  to  sleep  or  becomes  intoxicated, 
he  is  avoiding  arrest,  or  rather  trying  to  avoid  arrest, 
just  as  much  as  when  he  was  awake  or  sober,  or  as  if  he 
were  in  full  flight.  Avoiding  arrest  means  simply  taking 
any  steps  which  it  is  expected  or  hoped  will  succeed  in 
preventing  capture,  whether  such  steps  be  active  flight  or 
passive  concealment. 

Hence,  if  Jesus  trusted — even  in  a  general  way  only — 
that  Judas  would  not  betray  him,  and  in  that  trust  was  dis- 
appointed, Judas  was  a  traitor,  and  as  I  cannot  conceive  of 
a  disappointed  God,  I  must  believe  that  Jesus  was  but  man. 

Or  if  everything  happened  just  as  Jesus,  he  being  God, 
had  appointed  it  to  happen,  then  Judas  did  not  "  betray  " 
him  under  the  definition  now  being  considered. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       213 

Now  for  Viscount  Amberly.  His  book  was  the  first  of 
the  kind  I  had  ever  read,  and  I  read  it  several  years  ago, 
shortly  after  it  first  appeared,  and  have  not  since  examined 
it.  It  may  be  that  I  have  overestimated  its  value,  but  I 
think  not.  I  think  it  is  a  clear,  calm,  dispassionate,  emi- 
nently fair  and  able  presentation  of  his  views,  and  I 
believe  it  to  be  in  the  main  unanswerable ;  and  I  have 
used  many  of  his  ideas  besides  sometimes  quoting  his 
words  in  this  discussion.  And  although  I  have  since 
read  very  many  books  upon  the  same  subject,  some  of 
them  of  even  greater  ability, — e.  g,  The  Creed  of  Christen- 
dom, by  Wm.  Rathbone  Greg,  and  Supernatural  Religion, 
by  Prof.  W.  K.  Clifford, — the  pleasant  and  favorable  im- 
pression first  produced  on  my  mind  by  the  Viscount's 
book  has  never  been  in  the  least  effaced.  And  the  Bishop 
most  signally  fails  to  impeach  his  statements,  or  answer 
his  arguments,  as  we  will  now  see. 

The  Viscount  says  that  the  Gospels  represent  Jesus  as 
"  teaching  in  public  to  the  very  end  of  his  career."  Even 
the  Bishop  admits  that  they  do.  The  Viscount  also  says 
that  they  represent  "that  Judas  received  a  bribe  for  his 
betrayal."  The  Bishop  also  admits  that.  The  Viscount 
draws  the  conclusion  that  the  statements  are  "  self-con- 
tradictory," to  which  conclusion  the  Bishop  demurs  upon 
the  ground  that  although  teaching  in  public  to  the  very 
end,  the  High  Priests  and  their  party  were  afraid  to 
attempt  a  public  arrest  for  fear  of  a  tumult  or  a  failure ; 
and  therefore  bribed  Judas  to  lead  them  where  he  would 
be  comparatively  alone  and  unprotected,  and  cites  texts 
to  sustain  the  point. 

The  testimony  of  the  Bible  is  the  testimony  of  inter- 
ested witnesses,  and  consists  of  ex  parte  statements  made 
in  their  own  behalf,  or  in  behalf  of  their  cause  ;  these  wit- 


214  AX  INQUIRY  INTO 

nesses  have  never  been  cross-examined,  their  antecedents 
and  character  are  unknown,  and,  more  than  all,  the  evi- 
dence has  been  for  hundreds  of  years  exclusively  in  the 
hands  of  those  in  whose  interest  it  was  originally  given,  and 
they  have  had  every  facility  for  making  such  alterations, 
additions,  or  suppressions  as  might  be  thought  desirable, 
and  with  no  risk  of  being  found  out  except  through  their 
own  unskilf ulness.  Hence  we  are  not  obliged  to  take 
everything  the  Gospels  say  as  being  necessarily  true,  and 
then  attempt  to  reconcile  conflicting  statements  as  best  we 
may ;  we  take  them  as  we  find  them,  and  reconcile  them 
when  we  can,  and  when  we  cannot,  we  try  honestly  and 
earnestly  to  decide  which  of  the  conflicting  statements  is 
true,  and,  having  decided,  we  consider  the  other  of  the 
contradictory  statements  to  be  false. 

Applying  this  principle,  which  I  think  is  too  palpably 
correct  to  need  the  support  of  an  argument,  we  conclude 
that  the  wonderful  popularity  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  the 
texts  quoted  by  the  Bishop  is  a  mistake  ;  and  the  fact 
that  when  Pilate  wanted  to  release  him,  the  mob  cried 
out  against  it,  with  the  further  fact  that  the  high  priests 
bribed  Judas  to  guide  them  to  him,  is  proof  of  it.  It  was 
among  the  lower  orders  that  Jesus  had  his  friends,  but  he 
seems  to  have  had  none  who  were  willing  to  publicly  take 
his  part  in  the  mob  before  Pilate ;  and  if  his  teaching  was 
so  open  and  public  as  the  Bishop  thinks,  then  it  were  an 
absurdity  to  bribe  any  one  to  show  his  whereabouts,  which 
would  be  notorious — for  there  would  have  been  no  need 
of  concealment.  And  if  Jesus  was  so  well  satisfied  that 
his  enemies  were  trying  to  capture  him  that  he  frequented, 
at  night,  private  or  secluded  places  where  he  could  not 
be  apprehended  without  a  guide  to  lead  the  way  to  him 
(thus  showing  an   indisposition — to  put  it  mildly — to  be 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       2\$ 

arrested),  it  would  have  been  a  folly  of  which  I  am  willing 
to  acquit  him  to  have  appeared  so  openly  in  the  midst  of 
his  numerous  and  powerful  enemies,  backed,  as  they  were 
by  the  cohorts  of  Rome. 

Undoubtedly  Jesus  had,  as  he  deserved,  a  great  many 
xriends,  but  they  were,  as  I  have  said,  principally  among 
the  poor  and  humble,  and  they  could  not  have  been  any- 
thing like  a  majority  of  the  people,  for  the  sect  was  a 
small  one  long  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  If  Jesus  had 
been  "  intensely  loved  by  a  majority  of  the  people,"  as 
the  Bishop  says,  where  were  they  when  Pilate  wished  to 
release  him  ?  They  knew  of  the  custom,  and  they  knew 
that,  being  released  by  Pontius  Pilate's  order,  the  Roman 
soldiers  would  have  protected  him  and  them. 

I  think,  therefore,  that  such  texts  as  the  Bishop  alludes 
to  are  contradicted  by  the  undisputed  facts  mentioned  in 
other  texts  ;  that  is,  the  reports,  rumors,  or  conclusions  of 
the  writer,  as  set  forth  in  some  texts,  are  disproved  by 
the  facts  set  forth  by  the  same  writer  in  other  texts. 

Thus,  they  were  afraid  to  arrest  him  during  the  feast 
lest  there  should  be  an  uproar  (Matt,  xxvi.,  5)  ;  but  it  was 
also  at  that  same  feast  that  a  prisoner  was  to  be  released, 
and  when  Pilate  tried  to  release  Jesus,  the  very  multitude 
which  the  high  priests  are  represented  as  fearing,  being 
persuaded  by  the  priests  (as  the  account  says),  cried  for 
Barabbas,  and  they  all  cried  Let  him  [Jesus]  be  crucified 
(Matt,  xxvii.,  15-22).  Where  were  the  "  majority  of  the 
people,"  who  were  so  devoted  to  Jesus,  that  this  crowd, 
which  seems  to  have  been  the  one  in  which  his  friends 
were  expected  to  be,  was  unanimous  for  his  death  ?  And 
on  the  very  feast  at  which  it  was  feared,  because  of  the 
presence  of  his  friends,  to  arrest  him.  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  Viscount  has  the  best  of  it.     As  I  have  said,  I 


2l6  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

have  not  read  the  book  for  some  years,  and  do  not  remem- 
ber the  Viscount's  reasons  for  his  assertions,  and  have 
therefore  given  such  as  occur  to  me.  But  I  think  them 
amply  sufficient.1 

So,  also,  it  seems  to  me  that  Amberly  is  correct  in  the 
assertion  to  which  the  Bishop  objects:  that  "  Judas  is 
pointed  out  to  all  the  eleven  as  a  man  who  is  about 
to  give  up  their  master  to  punishment.  .  .  .  The 
announcement  is  taken  as  quietly  as  if  it  were  an  every- 
day occurrence  that  was  referred  to." 

The  Bishop  says :  "  Nowhere  does  He  mention  the 
name  of  the  traitor.  He  referred  in  such  an  obscure  way 
to  the  person  who  would  betray  Him,  that  while  the 
guilty  conscience  would  make  him  understand,  the  others 
did  not  perceive  to  whom  Christ  had  reference."  My 
Bible  (Protestant)  says,  Matt,  xxvi.,  21-25  : 

"  And  as  they  did  eat,  he  said  verily  I  say  unto  you  that  one  of  you  shall 
betray  me.  And  they  were  exceeding  sorrowful,  and  began  every  one  of 
them  to  say  unto  him,  Lord,  is  it  I  ?  And  he  answered  and  said,  He  that 
dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish,  the  same  shall  betray  me.  The  Son 
of  Man  goeth  as  it  is  written  of  him  :  but  woe  unto  that  man  by  whom  the 
Son  of  Man  is  betrayed  :  it  had  been  good  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been 
born.  Then  Judas,  which  betrayed  him,  answered  and  said,  Master,  is  it  I? 
He  said  unto  him,  Thou  hast  said." 

And  this  account  does  not  say  that  no  man  heard  him. 
If    I   understand  this  passage — and   the  Bishop    only 
quotes  a  part  of  it, — it  means  : 

1st.  That  Jesus   informed  them   all  that    one  of  them 

was  about  to  betray  him  ; 
2d.  That  they  were  "  exceeding  sorrowful." 

1  At  this  time,  and  for  a  long  time  afterwards,  the  book  was  lent  to  various 
friends,  and  I  have  never  since  examined  it.  My  quotations  in  my  first 
paper  were  from  my  notes. 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       217 

3d.  That  he  said,  "  He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with  me 
into  the  dish  .  .  .  shall  betray  me "  ;  and, 
as  if  this  were  not  plain  enough, 

4th.  That  when  Judas  said  "Is  it  I?''  Jesus  replied 
"  Thou  hast  said." 

If  Matthew  tells  the  truth— and  I  doubt  if  the  Church 
will  attempt  to  impeach  him,— every  man  at  the  table 
knew  that  Judas  was  the  traitor.  And  how  was  the 
announcement  taken  ?  They  were  sorry,  very  sorry, 
exceedingly  sorry.  As  if  Jesus  had  told  them  he  had  a 
bad  cold,  or  a  severe  headache,  or  was  going  away  from 
them  for  a  few  days.  When  a  teacher,  a  leader,  not  to 
say  a  God,  announces  to  his  chosen  intimates  and  disciples 
that  one  of  them  is  about  to  treacherously  lead  him  to  a 
cruel  death,  and  points  that  one  out  to  them ;  and  they 
say  nothing,  and  do  nothing,  but  only  feel  sorry  ;  it  is 
putting  it  very  mildly  to  say  that  they  took  it  "  as  quietly 
as  if  it  were  an  every-day  occurrence  "  ;  and  if  they  said 
or  did  any  more  than  I  have  here  set  down  this  Gospel 
does  not  inform  us  of  it. 

So  much  for  Matthew's  account.  Mark  and  Luke 
give  substantially  the  same,  but  omit  to  say  that  Judas 
asked  and  was  answered  in  the  manner  narrated  by  Mat- 
thew. Of  course  it  will  not  be  claimed  that  this  omis- 
sion disproves  or  contradicts  Matthew's  statement ;  these 
latter  simply  do  not  go  so  much  into  details.  They  seemed 
to  have  thought  that  Judas  was  sufficiently  indicated  by 
dipping  his  hand  into  the  dish. 

But  there  is  another  difference  between  them  which  is 
much  more  significant.  Matthew  says  that  when  they 
heard  what  Jesus  said  they  were  "  exceeding  sorrowful"; 
Mark  is  not  so  emphatic  ;  according  to  him  "  they  began 
to  be  sorrowful."     While  Luke  says  nothing  about  their 


218  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

sorrow,  but  states  that  there  was  "  a  strife  among  them 
which  of  them  should  be  accounted  the  greatest  "  (Luke, 
xxii.,  24),  each  evidently  having  an  eye  to  the  succession 
as  head  of  the  Church, — which  must  have  noticeably 
moderated  their  grief. 

It  will  be  noticed,  therefore,  that  in  each  of  the  three 
synoptical  Gospels  (which  are  all  the  Viscount  referred 
to)  it  is  indicated  with  distinctness  that  one  of  those  pres- 
ent is  about  to  betray  him,  that  in  Matthew  Judas  is 
directly  and  distinctly  pointed  out  as  the  man,  and  that 
in  the  other  two  he  is  sufficiently  indicated  to  put  any  one 
who  felt  any  interest  in  the  matter  on  guard,  and  cause, 
at  least,  further  inquiry  ;  but  nothing  of  the  sort  was 
done.  As  Amberly  puts  it,  "  no  step  was  taken  or  even 
suggested  by  any  of  them  to  either  impede  the  false 
disciple  in  his  movements,  or  to  save  Jesus  by  flight  or 
concealment."  And  while  Jesus  was  praying  in  the  gar- 
den they  felt  so  little  interest  in  the  matter  that  they 
went  to  sleep  while  he  had  left  them  to  watch.  Was  not 
the  Viscount,  as  I  said  before,  putting  it  with  extreme 
mildness  when  he  merely  said  they  treated  it  like  an 
every-day  occurrence  ? 

He  adds  that  John  tries  to  avoid  this  difficulty,  but 
thinks  that  he  fails — as  he  evidently  does, — for  even  there 
the  announcement  is  distinctly  made  to  all  that  one  of 
them  is  about  to  betray  him,  and  the  traitor  is  distinctly 
pointed  out  to  John  and  Peter.  And,  by  the  way, 
although  Amberly  distinctly  states  that  in  the  first  three 
Gospels  Judas  is  pointed  out  as  the  man,  the  Bishop  is 
reduced  to  such  straits  that  he  tries  to  disprove  that 
statement  by  quoting  from  the  fourth.  Again  the  Vis- 
count has  the  best  of  it. 

But    it   seems   to   me   that,  if  the  Christian   theory  be 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       219 

true,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  unnecessary  sympathy  dis- 
played for  Jesus  and  his  passion.  Considered  from  the 
Church's  standpoint,  the  scheme  was  his  own,  even  in  its 
details ;  and  the  good  to  be  done— the  saving  of  all 
humanity  present  and  to  come — was  so  great  that  the 
sufferings  of  his  temporary  body  sink  into  comparative 
insignificance.  Not  that  we  should  not  regret  the  neces- 
sity that  called  for  such  physical  sacrifice  and  pain,  but 
because  so  many  others  have  suffered  more  for  a  less 
result,  with  a  smaller  motive,  and  sustained  by  hope  in- 
stead of  certainty.  And  especially  does  it  seem  incon- 
sistent to  ascribe  such  sorrow  to  Jesus.  The  result  of 
his  passion  was  to  be  the  attaining  of  his  wish  to  rob 
death  of  its  sting,  the  grave  of  its  victory  ;  his  sacrifice 
was  his  own  wish,  his  own  scheme,  the  crucifixion  was 
the  end  of  his  self-imposed  troubles,  the  successful  con- 
summation of  his  plans,  and  he  was  to  resume  his  Godhood 
in  a  form  unmixed  with  humanity,  and  forever  free  from 
physical  and  mental  pain  and  suffering.  It  seems  that 
such  a  result,  even  at  the  cost  of  a  few  hours'  suffering, 
should  have  made  the  arrival  of  the  preordained  end  a 
cause  of  gratulation,  not  of  grief,  more  especially  to  Jesus 
himself.  As  the  human  soul  within  them  has  enabled  so 
many  martyrs  to  mount  the  scaffold,  and  to  brave  a  far 
more  cruel  death  at  the  stake,  with  a  smile  of  triumph 
and  a  hymn  of  thanksgiving,  because  of  the  crown  of 
glory  for  which  they  hoped,  so,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the 
God  within  Jesus  should  have  enabled  him  to  meet  his 
fate,  less  cruel  than  the  stake,  with  other  feelings  than  sor- 
row "  even  unto  death."  As  God  he  must  have  known 
his  future,  while  the  martyr  had  but  his  hopes.  Is  a 
human  soul  sustained  by  hope  stronger  to  suffer  than  God 
and  certainty  ? 


220       THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY. 

Thus  the  conclusions  to  be  legitimately  drawn  from  this 
story  of  the  Betrayal  seem  also  to  point  with  unerring 
accuracy  to  the  absurdity  of  the  theory  that  Jesus  was 
God,  and  to  tend  to  establish,  what  is  getting  to  be  the 
belief  of  the  most  intelligent  and  least  prejudiced  minds 
of  the  present  age,  that  he  was  an  earnest  reformer,  hon- 
estly trying  to  free  his  countrymen  from  what  he  recog- 
nised as  error — an  infidel  to  the  creed  of  the  past,  an 
apostle  of  the  creed  of  the  future  ;  but  whose  doctrines 
and  designs  were  misconstrued  and  misrepresented  by 
ignorant  or  designing  followers,  seeking  by  their  mis- 
representations to  advance  their  own  or  their  Church's 
interests  so  soon  as  his  lips  were  sealed  in  death — thrust- 
ing on  him,  as  I  have  already  said,  divine  honors,  which, 
were  he  alive,  he  would  most  certainly  have  rejected,  that 
they  might  profit  from  the  reflected  glory. 


THE  ARGUMENT. 

PROPOSITION   VI. 

VI.  The  Bible  is  not  a  divinely  inspired  book  ;  and  being 
untrustworthy  as  to  its  facts,  cannot  be  relied  on  as 
to  its  theories. 

If  the  Bible  be  a  divinely  inspired  book,  as  is  claimed,  I 
believe,  by  the  Christian  Churches  as  to  both  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  and  by  the  Jews  as  to  the  Old,  it  all 
being  spoken  of  indifferently  as  the  "  word  of  God,  "  it 
is  clear  that  it  must  be  inspired  in  whole,  or  in  part.  If 
in  whole,  then  everything  in  it  must  be  true ;  if  in  part, 
we  have  no  means,  so  far  as  I  know,  of  ascertaining  which 
are  the  inspired,  and  which  the  uninspired,  portions ; 
which  would,  of  itself,  greatly  detract  from  its  usefulness. 

But  it  may,  I  think,  be  safely  concluded  that  if  it  posi- 
tively and  unequivocally  asserts  any  important  thing  to  be 
an  absolute  fact,  and  it  is  demonstrated  that  such  thing 
is  not  a  fact,  and  is  not,  and  never  was,  or  could  be,  true, 
then  the  sacred  character  of  the  book  is  lost,  and  its  power 
as  an  authority  before  which  even  reason  must  bow,  is 
gone.  If  it  misleads  us,  and  is  ignorant,  unreliable,  and 
absurd  as  to  its  facts,  it  certainly  cannot  be  depended 
upon  for  the  correctness  of  its  theories.  The  statement 
of  this  proposition  is  its  sufficient  proof ;  it  only  remains 
to  be  seen  if  the  Bible  is  correct  in  its  statements  of 
facts. 

221  * 


222  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

It  had  been  my  intention,  in  discussing  this  proposition, 
to  have  commenced  with  the  cosmogony  of  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Genesis,  and  to  have  shown  how  science  has  abso- 
lutely demonstrated  its  utter  incorrectness  in  every  detail ; 
but  the  proportions  already  assumed  by  this  argument, 
and  the  vast  amount  of  material  at  hand  with  which  to 
demonstrate  the  unreliability  of  the  Old  Testament,  warn 
me  that  I  must  omit  much  that  I  would  like  to  say. 

I  can  only  repeat  that  science  has  shown  with  entire 
certainty  that  the  history  of  the  first  six  days  as  given  in 
Genesis  is  wrong,  impossible,  and  absurd,  because  in  direct 
contradiction  to  what  is  known  of  God's  records  and  God's 
law.  So  true  is  this  that  I  presume  no  one  pretending  to 
any  knowledge  of  the  present  condition  of  geology  will 
venture  to  deny  it. 

I  know  not  what  position  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
holds  on  this  point  ;  but  such  educated  Protestant  theo- 
logians as  I  have  spoken  with  about  it  hold  that  the  six 
days  of  creation  mean  six  periods,  each  of  vast  extent, 
and  thus  attempt  to  meet  some  of  the  facts  of  geology. 
But  that  does  not  explain  how  the  account  is  so  incorrect 
as  to  the  order  of  creation  of  vegetable  and  animal  life, 
nor  as  to  the  earth  being  made  as  we  know  it  before  the 
forming  of  the  sun,  nor  as  to  the  creation  of  light,  and  its 
separation  from  darkness  (whatever  that  may  mean)  on  the 
first  day,  while  the  sun  and  moon  were  not  made  until  the 
fourth  day.  Nor  do  these  apologists  seem  to  reflect  that 
there  are  seven  days  spoken  of,  one  of  which  is  devoted  by 
God  to  rest,  and  that  as  there  is  no  intimation  of  any  one 
of  the  days  being  different  in  duration  from  the  others, 
He  must  have  rested  as  many  millions  of  years  as  they 
assume  a  "  day  "  to  have  contained. 

The    truth  is  that  educated   theologians,   feeling  their 
4 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       223 

ground  giving  away  under  them,  grasp  at  any  straw,  no 
matter  how  slender,  to  save  themselves.  But  I  cannot 
dwell  on  this  point. 

Perhaps  one  of  the  most  remarkable  stories  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  that  of  the  deluge,  and,  as  the  demonstra- 
tion of  its  absurdity  is  not  so  generally  known  as  that  of 
the  cosmogony  just  referred  to,  I  will  consider  it  at  some 
length. 

The  introduction  to  the  story  is  in  these  words,  Gen. 
vi.,  5,  et  seq.  : 

"  And  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that 
every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually.  And 
it  repented  the  Lord  that  he  had  made  man  on  the  earth,  and  it  grieved  him  at 
his  heart.  And  the  Lord  said  I  will  destroy  man  whom  I  have  created  from 
the  face  of  the  earth,  both  man  and  beast,  and  the  creeping  thing,  and  the 
fowls  of  the  air  ;  for  it  repenteth  me  that  I  have  made  them.  But  Noah  found 
favor  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord."     (The  italics  are  mine.) 

Here  we  have  it  represented  that  the  great  and  only 
God  of  the  universe,  maker  and  sustainer  of  all  things 
animate  and  inanimate,  omnipotent,  omniscient,  and 
prescient,  repented  what  He  had  done! 

This  one  word,  if  it  means  what  it  says,  destroys  the 
divinity  of  the  Jewish  God.  To  repent  can  only  mean 
that  events  had  turned  out  differently  from  what  He  had 
anticipated,  or  that  He  had  changed  His  mind. 

The  first  is  evidently  what  is  meant  here,  for  the  reason 
of  the  repentance,  so  far  as  man  is  concerned,  is  given  : 
man  had  become  corrupt.  No  reason  is  given  why  he 
repented  having  made  the  lower  animals. 

So  (1)  either  God  did  not  know  that  man  would  become 
corrupt,  and  therefore,  when  he  found  that  he  had,  really 
repented, — became  sorry — that  he  had  made  him,  which 


224  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

deprives  God  of  His  attributes  of  prescience  and  omni- 
science ;  or  (2)  He  made  him  with  the  full  knowledge  that 
he  would  become  corrupt,  and  allowed  him  to  so  become 
— for  if  He  is  omnipotent  He  could  have  prevented  it, — 
and  thus  destroyed  him  for  being  what  He  permitted  him 
to  become,  He  foreknowing  from  the  beginning  both  the 
crime  and  the  punishment — which  takes  away  His  attribute 
of  justice — (in  which  case  the  account  is  incorrect  when  it 
says,  and  makes  God  say,  He  repented,  for  He  would,  in 
this  view,  have  been  merely  carrying  out  what  He  had 
determined  on  from  the  beginning,  and,  without  warning 
or  notice  of  any  kind,  would  have  visited  on  His  unpre- 
pared creatures  a  terrible  and  vindictive  punishment  under 
what  was,  to  them,  an  ex-post-facto  law)  ;  or  (3)  He  knew 
man  would  become  corrupt,  and  did  not  originally  intend 
to  punish  him,  but  changed  His  mind  (repented)  and  did 
inflict  an  unexpected  (even  to  Himself)  penalty. 

Turn  it  as  you  will,  this  passage  alone  is  sufficient  to 
show  that  the  God  here  portrayed  is  only  an  ideal  of 
ignorant  barbarians.  How  the  Roman  Church  gets  over 
this  word  "  repent  "  here  and  elsewhere  in  the  Bible  I  do 
not  know  ;  but  learned  Churchmen  of  other  denominations 
have  endeavored  to  explain  it  to  me  thus  :  the  people  to 
whom  the  word  of  God  was  originally  addressed  were  in- 
capable of  grasping  high  metaphysical  ideas,  and  could 
not  comprehend  the  true  reasons  which  actuated  God,  and 
therefore  they  were  given  one  which  was  suited  to  their 
comprehension.  They  could  not  receive  the  true  idea, 
therefore  they  were  given  the  nearest  approach  to  it  they 
could  comprehend.  I  suppose  this  is  about  as  good  an 
explanation  as  can  be  given  ;  at  any  rate  it  is  the  best  I 
have  heard. 

This  explanation  shifts  but   does  not  lessen  the  diffi- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       225 

culty.  It  means  that  God,  feeling  that  some  explanation 
was  necessary,  or  at  least  advisable,  gave  a.  false  one,  His 
reason  being  that  the  people  could  not  comprehend  the 
true  one.  Apart  from  the  fact  that  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand why  God  should  give  to  His  creatures  any  reason 
for  His  acts,  it  is  purely  an  assumption,  and,  I  think,  an 
unwarranted  one,  that  He  would  depart  from  that  truth 
which  is  a  part  of  His  essence,  and  lie  to  His  people  for 
fear  they  might  not  understand  Him  if  he  spoke  the 
truth.  It  passes  belief ;  the  explanation  needs  at  least 
as  much  explaining  as  did  the  original  statement ;  the 
remedy  is  even  worse  than  the  disease. 

The  truth  is  the  Old  Testament  merely  records  the 
ideas  which  the  ancient  Jews  had  formed  of  the  Divinity 
which  they  supposed  to  be  their  especial  God,  and  whom 
they  represented  as  possessing  the  principal  characteristics, 
good  and  bad,  which  they  knew  in  earthly  rulers  ;  and 
this  passage  is  but  another  proof  of  it.  They  felt  the 
need  of  a  God,  and  manufactured  one  just  as  every  other 
people  did.  Or  perhaps  it  would  be  more  exact  to  say 
they  felt  there  must  be  a  God,  and,  as  they  knew  nothing 
of  Him,  they  invested  Him  with  attributes  which  seemed 
very  proper  to  them,  but  which  to  a  more  enlightened 
and  cultivated  people  are  simply  blasphemous. 

So  much  for  the  introduction.  We  now  come  to  the 
event  as  narrated  in  the  book.  I  will  be  as  brief  as  the 
importance  of  the  point  will  permit. 

God  having  thus  resolved  to  destroy  everything  in  which 
was  the  breath  of  life,  except  Noah  and  his  family,  and  a 
sufficiency  of  the  animals,  etc.,  with  which  to  start  the 
world  afresh,  determined  to  execute  his  plan  of  destruc- 
tion by  means  of  a  flood,  and  that  those  whom  he  wished 
to  spare  should  be  saved  by  an  ark,  the  size  and  structure 


226  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

of  which  was  dictated  to  Noah  by  God  Himself.  It  is  to 
be  observed  that  the  entire  account  avoids  referring  any- 
thing to  miracle ;  the  whole  affair  was  to  be,  and  by  the 
account  was,  accomplished  by  the  use  of  purely  natural 
means.  We  of  the  present  age  know  that  for  this  story 
to  be  true  would  have  required  a  greater  variety  of 
miracles,  and  of  a  more  stupendous  character,  than  has 
ever  been  attributed  to  any  God  ;  but  to  the  people  *vho 
invented  the  story  nothing  could  be  more  natural. 

A  large  vessel  was  built,  it  was  stored  with  provisions, 
Noah  and  his  family,  and  specimens  of  every  living  thing 
on  earth  (except  fish,  which  it  appears  escaped  the  general 
condemnation  and  were  the  only  living  things  God  was 
satisfied  with — which  may  account  for  their  being  con- 
sidered, to  some  extent,  as  sacred  food  to  this  day),  went 
on  board  ;  a  heavy  rain  came,  lasting  forty  days  and  forty 
nights,  and  covered  the  entire  earth,  mountains  included, 
with  water,  and  drowned  all  that  were  not  in  the  ark. 

The  account  as  given  must  be  true  or  untrue  ;  difficul- 
ties are  not  to  be  explained  away  by  saying  that  with  God 
all  things  are  possible,  or  by  invoking  the  aid  of  special 
miracles.  No  miracle  is  mentioned  or  hinted  at.  The 
whole  thing  happened  as  it  is  described — that  is,  in  a  purely 
natural  way,  or  it  did  not  happen  at  all.  I  do  not  under- 
take to  disprove  statements  that  are  not  made,  nor  to 
combat  theories  that  are  not  warranted  by  the  narrative. 
I  intend  to  take  the  facts  as  they  are  recorded  and  to  deal 
with  them  alone. 

The  size  of  the  ark  is  given  at  300  cubits  long,  50  broad, 
and  30  high.  It  was  to  be  divided  into  three  stories.  It 
was  to  have  one  door  (size  not  given)  in  the  side,  and  one 
window,  a  cubit  large  above.  The  size  of  a  cubit  is 
variously  estimated  at  from    18  to  22  inches,  and  we  will 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       227 

consider  it  as  of  22  inches.  This  would  give  the  following 
dimensions:  length  550  feet  ;  width  91  feet  8  inches, 
and  height  55  feet.  The  floors  must  have  been  strong, 
so  the  stories  were  probably  of  17  feet  each.  This  would 
make  the  total  cubical  contents  of  the  ark,  supposing 
it  to  be  square  at  the  ends,  about  102,000  cubic  yards. 
Scott  in  his  commentaries  estimates  only  69,120  cubic 
yards,  but  we  want  all  the  room  we  can  get.  Each  floor 
contained  5,601  square  yards,  and  the  three  floors  together 
16,803  square  yards  total  standing  room  in  the  ark. 
Into  this  space  were  to  be  put : 

Birds,    according   to    Lesson   (cited    by    Hugh 

Miller),    6,266   species— and    Noah    being 

directed  to   take  of  fowls   of  the   air   by 

sevens,  male  and  female      ....        87,724 

Unclean  beasts,  1,825  species,  by  pairs,  3,650  ) 

Clean  beasts,  177  species,  by  sevens  .   .    6,128  J 

Land  reptiles,  457  species,  by  pairs  .         .  914 

Insects,  large  and    small,  754,600   species,    by 

pairs 1,509  200 

Then  the  food  for  all  these  for  one  year  and  seventeen 
days.  The  hay  for  such  animals  as  eat  that  food  is  esti- 
mated at  105,300  cubic  yards,  or  more  than  the  entire 
capacity  of  the  ark.  Then  consider  the  grain,  fruit,  fresh 
meat  for  the  carnivorous  animals,  fish  for  the  fish-eating 
beasts  and  birds,  insects  (other  than  those  to  be  preserved) 
for  certain  birds  and  beasts,  and  the  other  varieties  of 
food  necessary,  and  it  at  once  appears  how  utterly  absurd 
it  is  to  suppose  that  Noah  had  all  that  in  an  ark  that 
could  not  have  held  the  tenth  part  of  it  if  packed  like 
sardines  in  a  box. 


9778 


228  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

And  we  cannot  assume  that  the  animals  were  without 
food,  and  were  miraculously  preserved,  for  God  expressly 
ordered  Noah  to  provide  food  for  them  all,  and  nothing 
is  said  about  its  being  condensed  or  compressed  :  every- 
thing appears  to  have  gone  on  naturally. 

Consider  also  the  difficulty  of  getting  together  speci- 
mens of  the  entire  fauna  of  the  world  ;  how,  and  by  whom, 
it  was  determined  what  particular  pair,  or  seven  pairs, 
were  to  be  selected,  and  how  they  were  to  be  conveyed 
from  arctic,  antarctic,  temperate,  and  tropical  regions, 
and  how  they  were  to  withstand,  and  live  under,  the 
great  climatic  changes.  And  as  all  the  species  mentioned 
exist  now,  and  the  natural  changes  by  evolution  are  so 
slow  that  the  number  of  species  could  not  have  been 
much  less  at  the  time  of  this  supposed  flood  than  they 
are  now  (and  if  evolution  is  untrue  all  these  varieties  ex- 
isted then,  as  we  have  no  dogma  of  new  creations  so  far 
as  I  am  informed),  it  cannot  be  said  that  Noah  did  not 
take  them  all  on  board,  unless  we  consider  the  flood  as 
partial,  not  universal,  and  this  point  is  considered  further 
on.  And  whether  they  came  or  were  brought,  the  diffi- 
culty is  the  same ;  and  we  have  no  right  to  claim  a  miracle 
where  none  is  even  hinted  at. 

And  the  same  difficulty  which  attended  their  collection 
must  also  have  attended  their  dispersion,  with  the  ad- 
ditional most  serious  difficulty  of  how,  and  where,  they 
were  to  live  until  nature  had  time  to  produce  their  proper 
food,  vegetable  and  animal. 

Again,  as  these  beasts,  birds,  reptiles,  and  insects  were 
in  confinement,  they  required  attention.  Imagine  the 
eight  persons  in  the  ark  giving  them  food  and  water,  and 
cleaning  up  their  filth.  In  our  days,  in  menageries,  one 
man  cares  for  four  cages — cleaning  and  feeding  the  ani- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       229 

mals.  In  the  ark,  each  person,  women  included,  must 
have  attended,  each  day,  to  10,964  birds,  766  beasts, 
and  1 14  reptiles,  besides  the  almost  innumerable  insects, 
and  all  in  the  dark,  there  being  but  one  window,  22 
inches  square,  in  the  roof,  and  one  door  in  the  side, 
and  that  shut.  And  the  ventilation!  the  smell !— but 
I  forbear. 

The  Bible  says  that  "  all  the  high  hills  that  were  under 
the  whole  heavens  were  covered  ;  fifteen  cubits  upward 
did  the  water  prevail ;  and  the  mountains  were  covered." 
And  all  this  from  a  rain  of  forty  days  and  forty  nights ! 
The  heaviest  rain  recorded  in  modern  times  is  30  inches 
in  24  hours ;  such  a  rain  as  this,  had  it  fallen  over  the  en- 
tire globe  (which  is,  of  course,  impossible,  naturally)  for 
forty  days  and  forty  nights  would  have  been  but  100 
feet,  which  would  not  have  covered  the  hills,  much  less 
the  mountains.  To  cover  the  highest  mountains  it  would 
have  to  rain,  instead  of  30  inches,  700  feet  a  day  for  forty 
days.  But  there  is  not  water  enough  in  the  atmosphere, 
according  to  Sir  John  Leslie,  to  form,  if  all  precipitated 
at  once,  a  sheet  more  than  five  inches  thick  over  the  sur- 
face of  the  globe— that  is  to  say,  if  all  the  water  in  our 
atmosphere  were  added  to  all  on  earth.  Then  where  could 
the  water  have  come  from  ?  That  quantity  of  water  does 
not  exist  in,  on,  under,  or  above  the  earth.  And  where 
could  it  have  gone  to  when  the  flood  was  over?  It  had 
no  place  to  run  off  to,  and  evaporation  was  the  only  way 
to  get  rid  of  it.  Accordingly  it  is  said  that  "  God  made  a 
wind  to  pass  over  the  earth."  For  this  wind  to  have  re- 
moved the  water  from  the  surface  of  the  earth,  it  would 
have  been  necessary  to  have  blown  away  an  ocean  125 
feet  deep,  over  the  whole  earth,  every  day  for  eight 
months  !     But  even  this  does  not  explain  where  the  water 


230  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

went  to.     Certainly  it  did  not  stay  within  the  sphere  of 
attraction  of  this  planet. 

I  might  go  on  for  many  pages  in  the  same  way,  show- 
ing the  utter  absurdity,  viewed  naturally,  of  the  account, 
but  hardly  think  it  necessary.  Those  who  desire  to  go 
still  further  into  the  details  of  this  subject  are  referred  to 
a  lecture  by  Prof.  Wm.  Denton,  the  geologist,  called 
The  Deluge  in  the  LigJit  of  Modem  Science  from  which 
I  have  condensed  my  facts  and  figures  in  this  connection. 
I  quote  from  that  discourse,  pp.  29-31  : 

' '  Geology  furnishes  us  with  evidence  that  no  such  deluge  has  taken  place. 
According  to  Hugh  Miller,  '  in  various  parts  of  the  world,  such  as  Auvergne 
in  Central  France,  and  along  the  flanks  of  ^Etna,  there  are  cones  of  long- 
extinct,  or  long-slumbering,  volcanoes,  which  though  of  at  least  triple  the 
antiquity  of  the  Noachian  deluge,  and  though  composed  of  the  ordinary 
incoherent  materials,  exhibit  no  marks  of  denudation.  According  to  the 
calculations  of  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  no  devastating  flood  could  have  passed 
over  the  forest  zone  of  /Etna  during  the  last  twelve  thousand  years.' 

"  Archaeology  enters  her  protest  equally  against  it.  We  have  abundance 
of  Egyptian  mummies,  statues,  inscriptions,  paintings,  and  other  representa- 
tions of  Egyptian  life  belonging  to  a  much  earlier  period  than  the  deluge.  With 
only  such  modifications  as  time  slowly  introduced,  we  find  the  people,  their 
language  and  their  habits,  continuing  after  that  time  as  they  had  done  for 
centuries  before.  Lepsius.  writing  from  the  pyramids  of  Memphis,  in  1843, 
says  :  '  We  are  still  busy  with  structures,  sculptures,  and  inscriptions,  which 
are  to  be  classed,  by  means  of  the  now  more  accurately  determined  groups 
of  kings,  in  an  epoch  of  highly  flourishing  civilization,  as  far  back  as  the 
fourth  millennium  before  Christ.'  That  is  one  thousand  six  hundred  and 
fifty-six  years  before  the  time  of  the  flood.  Lyell  says  that  '  Chevalier  Bun- 
sen,  in  his  elaborate  and  philosophical  work  on  Ancient  Egypt,  has  satisfied 
not  a  few  of  the  learned,  by  an  appeal  to  monumental  inscriptions  still  ex- 
tant, that  the  successive  dynasties  of  kings  may  be  traced  back,  without  a 
break,  to  Menes,  and  that  the  date  of  his  reign  would  correspond  with  the 
year  3640  B.C.'  That  is  nearly  thirteen  hundred  years  before  the  deluge! 
Strange  that  the  whole  world  should  have  been  drowned,  and  the  Egyptians 
never  knew  it  ! 

"From  The  Types  of  Mankind,  we  learn  that  the  fact  is  '  asserted  by 
Lepsius,  and  familiar  to   all   Egyptologists,  that  negro  and   other  races  al- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       23 1 

ready  existed  in  Northern  Africa,  on  the  upper  Nile,  2300  years  B.C.' 
But  this  is  only  48  years  after  the  deluge.  .  .  If  all  the  human  occupants 
of  the  ark  were  Caucasians,  how  did  they  produce  negro  races  in  48  years  ? 
The  facts  again  compel  us  to  announce  the  fabulous  character  of  this  Gene- 
sicle  story  of  the  deluge." 

This  is,  of  course,  on  the  idea  that  the  flood  was  univer- 
sal. What  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  teaches  on  the 
subject  I  do  not  know,  and  the  Bishop  has  never  replied 
to  this  argument.  It  was  originally  believed,  I  suppose, 
by  all  Christendom,  that  the  flood  was  just  as  it  is  repre- 
sented in  the  Book,  i.  e.,  universal — over  the  whole  earth. 
But  when  science  demonstrated  that  that  could  not  have 
been,  many  Churchmen,  and  Christian  geologists,  claimed 
that  the  flood  was  only  partial,  and  that  the  difficulties  of 
the  narrative  may  be  so  explained  and  removed. 

This  is  an  old  device,  as  J.  T.  Sunderland,  What  is 
the  Bible  ?   1878,  p.  27,  says  : 

"  Almost  every  scientific  theory  that  comes  into  existence  is  found  to  con- 
flict in  some  point  or  other  with  the  theological  notions  which  an  unscientific 
past  has  handed  down.  But  the  theologians  are  ever  on  the  alert  ;  and  war 
to  the  knife  is  at  once  declared  against  the  scientific  intruder.  All  friends 
of  the  Bible  are  summoned  to  the  Holy  War.  The  conflict  rages  fiercely 
and  shows  no  signs  of  abatement  until  it  is  seen  that  the  scientists  are  getting 
the  day,  when  it  begins  to  be  discovered  by  the  theologians  that  after  all  the 
new  theory  is  harmless,  indeed  there  is  no  discrepancy  between  it  and  the 
Scripture.  The  discrepancy  that  had  been  supposed  to  exist  grew  out  of  a 
wrong  Scripture  interpretation.  In  fact,  instead  of  the  two  being  in  conflict, 
the  scientific  theory  is  really  taught  in  the  Bible." 

And  Letourneau,  Biology,  p.  303  (as  quoted  by  Sun- 
derland) : 

"  The  doctrine  of  evolution  is  already  almost  triumphant.  There  scarcely 
remains  for  the  recalcitrants  any  other  resources  than  to  demonstate  its  per- 
fect agreement  with  the  (theological)  dogmas  they  are  not  willing  to  abandon. 
The  thing  is  in  process  of  execution.  The  interpreters  are  skilful,  the 
sacred  texts  obliging,  the  metaphysical  theories  ductile,  malleable,  flexible. 


22,2         .  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

Courage  !  we  must  be  very  narrow-minded  indeed  not  to  recognize  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  a  succinct  exposition  of  the  Darwinian  theory." 

But  this  accommodating  power  of  changing  and  mod- 
ifying interpretations  of  Scripture  ought  not  to  apply  to 
any  Church  ^claiming  to  be  infallible,  unless,  indeed,  it 
also  claims  that,  no  matter  what  it  taught,  it  always 
knew  what  was  right,  and,  after  the  example  of  God 
(according  to  the  word  "  repent  "  as  explained  by  the 
apologists),  only  submitted  to  the  people  such  truths  as  it 
thought  they  could  comprehend  or  stomach.  I  suppose 
when  no  one  knew  any  better,  and  everybody  believed 
in  a  total  deluge,  all  of  the  Churches  so  believed,  and 
should  yet  unless,  still  after  the  example  of  God  as  indi- 
cated in  the  Book,  they  have  changed  their  views. 

But  this  is  unimportant.  If  any  Church  believes,  or 
believed,  the  deluge  total,  it  is,  or  was,  as  we  have  seen, 
wrong ;  if  it  believes,  or  believed,  the  deluge  partial,  it 
equally  is,  or  was,  wrong,  as  we  are  about  to  see.  I  quote 
again  from  Denton's  lecture  on  the  deluge,  p.  31  et  seq.,  as 
to  a  partial  deluge  : 

"  I  read  (Gen.  vi.,  7)  '  I  will  destroy  both  man  and  beast  and  the  creeping 
thing.'  How  could  a  partial  deluge  accomplish  this  ?  (vi.,  13)  'The  end 
of  all  flesh  is  come  before  me.  I  will  destroy  them  with  the  earth.'  How 
could  all  flesh  be  destroyed  with  the  earth  by  any  other  than  a  total  deluge? 
(vi.,  17)  '  I  do  bring  a  flood  of  water  upon  the  earth,  to  destroy  all  flesh 
wherein  is  the  breath  of  life,  from  under  heaven,  and  every  thing  that  is  in 
the  earth  shall  die.'  Not  only  is  man  to  be  destroyed,  but  all  flesh  wherein 
is  the  breath  of  life,  from  under  heaven,  and  everything  in  the  earth  is  to 
die.  Can  this  be  tortured  to  mean  a  partial  deluge?  (vii.,  19)  'And  the 
waters  prevailed  exceedingly  upon  the  earth  ;  and  all  the  high  hills  that 
were  under  the  whole  heavens  were  covered;  (21)  and  all  flesh  died  that  moved 
upon  the  earth,  both  of  fowl,  and  of  cattle,  and  of  beasts,  and  of  every 
creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth,  and  every  man.  (22)  All  in  whose 
nostrils  was  the  breath  of  life,  and  all  that  was  in  the  dry  land,  died.  (23)  And 
every  living  substance  was  destroyed  which  was  upon  the  face  of  the  ground, 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.       233 

both  man  and  cattle,  and  the  creeping  things,  and  the  fowl  of  the  heaven  ; 
and  they  were  destroyed  from  the  earth,  and  Noah  only  remained  alive,  and 
they  that  were  with  him  in  the  ark.' 

"  Had  the  man  who  wrote  this  story  been  a  lawyer,  and  had  he  known 
how  these  would-be  Bible  believers,  and,  at  the  same  time,  geologists, 
would  seek  to  pervert  his  meaning,  he  could  not  have  more  carefully  worded 
his  account.  It  is  not  possible  for  any  man  to  express  the  idea  of  a  total 
flood  more  definitely  than  this  man  has  done.  He  does  not  merely  say  the 
hills  were  covered,  but  '  all '  the  hills  were  covered  ;  and  lest  you  should 
think  he  certainly  did  not  mean  the  most  elevated,  he  is  careful  to  say  '  all 
the  high  hills  '  were  covered  ;  and  lest  some  one  should  say  he  only  meant 
the  hills  in  that  part  of  the  country,  he  says  expressly  '  all  the  high  hills  that 
were  under  the  whole  heavens  were  covered,'  lest  some  one  in  its  absence  might 
still  think  that  the  deluge  was  a  partial  one.  To  make  its  universality  still 
more  evident,  he  says  'all  flesh  died  that  moved  upon  the  earth.'  This 
would  have  been  sufficiently  definite  for  most  persons,  but  not  so  for  him  ; 
he  particularizes  so  that  none  may  escape — '  both  of  fowl,  and  of  cattle,  and 
every  man.'  To  leave  no  possibility  of  mistake,  he  adds,  '  all  in  whose  nos- 
trils was  the  breath  of  life,  and  all  that  was  in  the  dry  land,  died.'  Can 
anything  more  be  needed  ?  The  writer  seems  to  see  that  some  theological 
professor  may  even  yet  try  to  make  this  a  partial  deluge  ;  and  he  therefore 
says  '  every  living  substance  was  destroyed  which  was  upon  the  face  of  the 
ground,  both  man  and  cattle,  and  the  creeping  things,  and  the  fowl  of  the 
heaven  ;  they  were  destroyed  from  the  earth.'  Is  it  possible  to  add  to  the 
strength  of  this  ?  He  thinks  it  is  ;  and  he  therefore  says,  '  Noah  only  re- 
mained alive,  and  they  that  were  with  him  in  the  ark.'  Could  any  man 
write  this  and  then  mean  that  less  than  a  hundreth  part  of  the  earth's  surface 
was  covered?  If  not  a  total  flood,  why  save  the  animals — above  all,  the 
birds  ?  AH  that  Noah  and  his  family  need  to  have  done  would  have  been  to 
move  out  of  the  region  till  the  storm  was  over.  If  a  partial  flood,  how  could 
the  ark  have  rested  on  the  mountains  of  Ararat  ?  Ararat  itself  is  17,000  feet 
high,  and  it  rises  from  a  plateau  that  is  7,000  feet  above  the  sea-level.  A 
flood  that -enabled  the  ark  to  float  on  to  that  mountain  could  not  have  been 
far  from  universal,  and  when  such  a  flood  is  accounted  for  on  scientific  prin- 
ciples, it  will  be  just  as  easy  to  account  for  a  total  flood. 

"  '  The  flood  was  only  intended  to  destroy  man,  and  therefore  only  covered 
those  parts  of  the  earth  that  were  occupied  by  him.'  " 

(The  Professor  here  supposes  an  objection. ) 

"The  Bible  states,  however,  that  it  was  intended  to  destroy  everything 
wherein  was  the  breath  of  life,  and  your  account  and  the  Bible  do  not  agree. 
But   if   man  was  intended  to  be  destroved,  the  flood  must  have  been   wide- 


234  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

spread/  We  know  that  Africa  was  occupied  before  that  time,  and  had  been 
for  thousands  of  years,  by  various  races.  We  learn  from  the  recent  discov- 
eries in  the  Swiss  Lakes  that  man  was  in  Switzerland  before  that  time  ;  in 
France  as  Boucher's  and  Rigollet's  discoveries  prove  ;  in  Great  Britain  as  the 
caves  in  Devonshire  show  ;  in  North  America  as  the  fossil  human  skull  be- 
neath Table  Mountain  demonstrates.  Hence,  for  the  flood  to  destroy  man 
alone  at  so  recent  a  period,  it  must  have  been  as  widespread  as  the  earth. 

"  Even  according  to  the  Bible  account,  the  Garden  of  Eden  where  man 
was  first  placed,  was  somewheres  near  the  Euphrates  ;  and  in  1600  years  the 
race  must  have  rambled  over  a  large  part  of  the  earth's  surface.  The  highest 
mountains  in  the  world,  the  Himalayas,  are  within  2000  miles  of  the 
Euphrates.  That  splendid  country,  India,  would  have  been  occupied  long 
before  the  time  of  the  deluge  ;  and  on  the  flanks  of  the  Himalayas  man 
could  have  laughed  at  any  flood  that  natural  causes  could  possibly  produce. 

"  '  How  do  you  account,  then,  for  these  traditions  of  a  deluge  that  we  find 
all  over  the  globe  ?  '  " 

(Another  objection.) 

"  Nothing  more  easy.  In  all  times  floods  have  occurred  ;  some  by  heavy 
and  long-continued  rains,  others  by  the  bursting  of  lake  barriers,  or  the 
irruptions  of  the  sea  ;  and  wherever  traditions  of  these  have  been  met  with, 
men,  with  the  Bible  story  in  their  minds,  have  at  once  attributed  their  origin 
to  the  Noachian  deluge." 

I  have  quoted  at  length  because  to  have  condensed  was 
to  have  spoiled.  In  fact  the  first  portion  of  my  remarks 
on  the  facts  of  this  remarkable  myth,  condensed  from  this 
admirable  lecture,  has  very  little  of  the  force  with  which 
Prof.  Denton  urges  his  criticism.  Still  I  think  that  the 
matter  is  even  here  stated  with  sufficient  clearness  and 
strength  to  demonstrate  that  the  account,  as  given  in  the 
Bible,  is  simply  the  rather  clumsy  invention  of  a  primitive 
people  totally  unacquainted  with  many  now  well-known 
facts  clearly  set  forth  in  what  is  undoubtedly  God's  revela- 
tion to  man,  the  Book  of  Nature,  a  book  which  speaks 
everywhere  and  to  all  men  the  same  language,  and  tells  the 
same  sublime  story,  free  from  all  vain  imaginings  and 
false  teachings  ;   a  book  which,  though  hard  to  read  and 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       2$$ 

oftentimes  misconstrued  as  to  its  higher  teachings,  is 
simple  and  plain  as  to  its  more  necessary  lessons,  and 
which  would  have  been  now  far  better  understood,  because 
more  universally  studied,  had  not  the  Church  discouraged 
all  investigation  which  pointed  to  conclusions  differing 
from  those  begotten  of  superstition  and  taught  of  igno- 
rance. 

But  an  important  corollary  may  be  drawn  from  the 
exposure  of  the  fallacy  of  this  account  as  indicated  above. 
It  is  not  given  to  us — as  in  truth  it  is — as  one  of  the 
barbaric  theories  of  the  past,  or  even  as  a  purely  human 
history.  It  is  held  up  as  divine;  God  Himself  is  sup- 
posed to  be  the  author  of  the  story  ;  and  as  this  narrative 
rests  on  the  same  authority  as  does  the  entire  Old  Testa- 
ment, an  assumed  communication  between  God  and  man  ; 
and  as  the  Old  Testament  is  the  foundation  on  which  is 
built  the  New,  the  demolition  of  this  story  is  the  demoli- 
tion of  all — that  is,  the  demolition  of  the  divine  origin  of 
all.  And  as  Jesus  is  represented  as  endorsing  this  most 
absurd  and  impossible  legend  by  saying  :  "  But  as  the  days 
of  Noe  were,  so  shall  also  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man 
be.  For,  as  in  the  days  that  were  before  the  flood  they 
were  eating  and  drinking,  marrying  and  giving  in  marriage, 
until  the  day  Noe  entered  into  the  ark,  and  knew 
not  until  the  flood  came  and  took  them  all  away  :  So 
shall  also  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  be "  (Matt, 
xxiv.,  37-39) ;  we  can  but  conclude  that,  as  a  man, 
living  at  the  time  he  did,  and  knowing  no  more  of 
nature  than  those  around  him,  he,  as  was  natural,  be- 
lieved with  reference  to  supposed  ancient  history, 
what  was  believed  by  his  contemporaries  ;  but  this  one 
fact  that  he  believed  in  the  reality  of  the  occurrence 
and  truth  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  Noachian  deluge, 


236  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY. 

should,  to  every  thoughtful,  well-informed,  impartial,  and 
unbenumbed  mind,  at  once  deprive  him  of  that  Godhood 
which  since  his  death  the  Church  has  thrust  upon  him. 
If  it  were  an  easy  task  to  point  out  an  almost  unlimited 
number  of  absurd  stories  and  barbaric  conceptions  of  God 
contained  in  the  Old  Testament ;  the  material  is  abundant 
and  readily  accessible  through  the  labors  of  others,  and 
my  only  task  would  be  to  transcribe.  But  if  the  foregoing 
argument  is  as  conclusive  as  I  think  it  is,  further  evidence 
is  unnecessary  ;  still  I  cannot  forbear,  in  conclusion,  refer- 
ring to  Exodus  xxxii.  and  Numbers  xiv.,  where  Moses 
represents  himself  as  having  an  argument  with  God,  and 
getting  the  best  of  it  by  appealing  to  His  vanity,  telling 
Him  what  the  Egyptians  would  say  of  Him,  as  specimens, 
not  of  what  God  is,  but  of  the  Jewish  conception  of  Him 
— a  conception  outgrown  by  all  the  civilized  world  except 
the  adherents  of  dogmatic  Christianity. 


THE   ARGUMENT. 

PROPOSITION  VII. 

VII.     Arguments   directed  especially   against   the  Roman 

Catholic  form  of  orthodoxy  : 

Saying  masses  for  the  dead— for  a  pecuniary  con- 
sideration— is  either  obtaining  money  under  false 
pretences,  or  is  selling  the  grace  of  God  ; 

If  repentance  and  confession  are  necessary  to  and 
will  secure  salvation,  charity,  and  other  good  works 
cannot  affect  our  future  condition — unless  the 
forgiveness  of  God  can  be  bought ; 

And  the  Church  practising  the  one  and  teaching  the 
other  is  in  error  and  not  infallible. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  claims  infallibility  ;  if  any 
of  her  teachings  or  practices  can  be  shown  to  be  wrong 
or  inconsistent  with  other  of  her  teachings  or  practices 
she  must  give  up  this  pretension  ;  and,  having  built 
herself  up  on  this  theory,  must  fall  with  it. 

I  have  seen  circulars  and  other  advertisements  dis- 
tributed in  and  posted  on  the  walls  of  Roman  Catholic 
cathedrals  and  churches,  claiming  on  their  face  to  be  by 
the  authority  of  the  bishop  of  the  diocese,  in  which  it  is 
stated  that  by  the  payment  of  a  specified  sum  of  money 
any  deceased  person  whose  name  is  given  by  a  subscriber 
may  participate  in  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  certain 
Masses  which  were  to  be  said  at  certain  times  and  places. 

237 


2 $8  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

The  practice  is  a  common  one,  I  believe,  and  extends  to 
wherever  there  are  priests  to  say  the  Mass. 

These  official  announcements  can  mean  but  one  thing  : 
if  I  pay  the  required  sum  it  is  my  privilege  to  name  any 
deceased  person,  and  the  benefits  of  the  Mass  are  ex- 
tended to  him  ;  if  I  fail  to  pay  such  sum  the  deceased 
person  does  not  get  the  benefit  of  the  Mass.  In  other 
words,  no  one  gets  the  benefit  of  these  particular  Masses 
except  those  for  whom  the  benefit  is  bought. 

I  believe  that  requiem  Masses  also  are  charged  for,  and 
that  they  will  not  be  said  unless  the  price  demanded  is 
paid  ;  such  at  least  is  the  custom  in  such  Roman  Catholic 
communities  as  I  am  familiar  with.  If  this  be  true  gener- 
ally, the  remarks  I  am  about  to  make  will  apply  to  them 
also  ;  if  not  true  generally,  they  will  apply  so  far  as  the 
custom  exists. 

A  Mass  for  a  dead  person  either  does  good  or  it  does 
not  do  good  ;  is  either  valuable  or  worthless. 

The  Church,  if  infallible,  must  know  whether  it  does 
good  or  not,  because  if  the  Church  thinks  it  does  good  and 
it  does  not,  the  Church  is  in  error,  and  therefore  not 
infallible;  and  I  will  not  ask  the  Church  to  admit  that  it 
sells  Masses  either  knowing  or  believing  them  to  be  worth- 
less ;  for  if  the  Mass  is  worthless,  and  the  Church  so 
thinks,  or  knows,  my  money  is  obtained  by  her  under 
false  pretences,  and  I  am  defrauded  in  the  name  of  God. 

If  the  Mass  does  good,  is  valuable,  that  necessarily 
means  that  because  of  the  Mass  God  does  something  which 
without  it  He  would  not  have  done,  or  omits  to  do  some- 
thing which  without  it  He  would  have  done  ;  for  if  the 
Mass  in  no  way  influences  Him,  it  does  neither  good  nor 
harm. 

Now,  whether  the  Mass  is  or  is  not  said  for  the  deceased 
person,  or,  in  other  words,  whether  or  not  the  deceased 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY.       239 

person  obtains  whatever  benefit  may  arise  from  the  saying 
of  the  Mass,  depends  on  whether  or  not  a  certain  sum  of 
money  is  paid  ;  that  is,  if  the  money  is  paid  on  his  account 
he  receives  the  benefit  ;  if  it  is  not  so  paid  he  does  not ; 
for  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  he  will  receive  the  benefit  IF 
the  money  is  paid  ;  and  if  he  would  receive  the  benefit 
without  the  money  being  paid — if  he  would  be  as  well  off 
without  paying  as  with, — the  person  who  has  been  induced 
to  pay  the  money  is  defrauded,  not  having  been  put  in 
possession  of  all  the  facts,  but  having  been  led  to  believe 
that  the  benefit  depended  on  the  payment  of  the  money. 

And  if  the  benefit  does  depend  on  the  payment  of  the 
money,  then  the  grace  of  God  is  for  sale. 

There  is  no  escape,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  from  this 
dilemma,  if  the  Church  be  infallible — for  if  she  be  infallible 
she  certainly  must  know  the  value  of  her  own  rites  and 
ceremonies  ;  and  either  the  Church  obtains  money  under 
false  pretences,  by  offering  for  it  a  service  which  she  knows 
to  be  worthless  ;  or,  if  she  knows  it  to  be  valuable,  she 
sells  the  grace,  the  forgiveness,  of  God,  by  limiting  the 
benefits  of  the  Mass  to  those  who  have  paid  for  it. 

Again,  if  I  have  correctly  understood  the  doctrinal  ser- 
mons I  have  heard,  and  even  the  argument  of  the  Bishop 
in  this  discussion,  it  is  taught  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  that  repentance  and  confession  are  essential  to, 
and  sufficient  for,  salvation.  That  is  to  say,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  a  full  absolution,  after  all  sins  have  been  repented 
and  confessed,  insures  salvation  ;  but  a  sin,  to  be  forgiven, 
must  be  repented,  and,  where  a  priest  can  be  had,  must 
also  be  confessed,  and  absolution  be  obtained  ;  otherwise, 
if  repentance  alone  be  sufficient,  confession,  not  being 
necessary,  is  valueless,  except  to  give  the  clergy  the  im- 
mense advantage  of  an  exact  and  intimate  knowledge  of 


24O  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

the  personal  characteristics,  traits,  and  affairs  of  their 
people.1 

Therefore,  if  there  remains  one  sin  unrepented  and  un- 
confessed  (the  sinner  having  had  opportunity  to  seek 
absolution),  that  sin  must  remain  unforgiven,  and  the  sin- 
ner be  damned,  or  else  an  unrepented  and  unforgiven 
sin  will  not  prevent  the  salvation  of  the  wicked. 

Then  I  have  heard  the  faithful  urged  to  give  money  to 
the  Church,  to  build  another  edifice,  to  repair  or  improve 
the  old  one,  to  further  complete  a  new  one,  to  support  the 
clergy,  and  for  various  other  purposes  ;  and  I  have  under- 
stood it  to  be  held  out,  sometimes  directly,  sometimes 
indirectly,  as  an  inducement  to  give  and  to  give  liberally, 
that  it  would  be  a  good  act  which  would  be  remembered 
by  God  to  the  advantage  of  the  giver  hereafter,  with  a 
strong  intimation  that  the  future  advantage  was  to  be 
proportionate  to  the  amount  given — not  the  actual  amount, 
perhaps,  but  proportionate  to  the  relation  of  the  amount 
given  to  the  ability  to  give. 

All  of  which  suggests  this  :  suppose  one  (we  will  suppose 
a  member  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church)  has  committed 
a  sin  which  is  unrepented  and  unconfessed  (with  oppor- 
tunity of  confession)  and  so  dies,  how  will  the  money 
which  he  may  have  given  to  the  Church  help  him  ?  Will 
God  say,  or  think,  that  as  he  had  given  money  to  help 
build  Him  a  temple  or  to  help  support  His  clergy,  or  for 
any  other  Church  purpose,  his  unrepented  and  voluntarily 
unconfessed  sin  will  be  forgiven  unasked?  If  yes,  then 
repentance  and  confession  may  be   rendered   unnecessary 

1  I  am  informed  that  there  is  a  repentance — that  flowing  alone  from  the  love 
of  God— which  is  so  efficacious  that  it  needs  neither  confession  nor  absolution. 
Of  course  my  argument  applies  equally  to  repentance  alone,  where  confession 
is  unnecessary,  as  to  the  two  when  they  are  required  to  be  combined. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.      24I 

by  good  works,  and  the  forgiveness  of  God  has  been 
bought  with  money  (if  money-giving  be  the  particular 
good  work),  even  if  He  looks  only  to  the  intention  with 
which  the  money  has  been  given  ;  if  no,  then  his  liberality 
to  the  Church  will  have  availed  him  nothing,  and  he  will 
be  punished  just  as  his  sin  deserves,  without  reference  to 
his  gifts. 

Or,  if  his  sins  be  all  repented  and  confessed,  and  absolu- 
tion obtained  therefor,  he  is  sure  of  salvation — or  else  full 
absolution  for  all  sins  is  meaningless — and  the  money  so 
given  avails  him  nothing  ;  he  is  safe  without  reference  to 
his  charity. 

So  the  ground  upon  which  the  money  is  sought  to  be 
obtained,  and  the  rewards  held  out  as  an  inducement  to 
give,  seem  to  me  to  be  entirely  unsubstantial,  illusory,  and 
deceptive,  if  the  teachings  of  the  Church  be  true,  even  if 
they  be  held  out  in  good  faith  by  the  clergy. 

And  it  will  not  do  to  say  that  such  charity  will  not  pro- 
cure the  forgiveness  of  an  unrepented,  unconfessed  sin, 
but  will  go  to  the  credit  of  the  sinner,  and  lessen  his 
punishment  ;  it  is  still  forgiveness  pro  tanto,  and  to  that 
extent  has  been  bought. 

From  my  standpoint  I  can,  and  do,  believe  that  every 
good  action,  done  with  a  proper  motive  (without  which 
it  could  hardly  be  called  really  good),  will  bring  its  reward 
here  and  hereafter ;  for  while  I  believe  that  "  faith  with- 
out works  is  death,"  I  also  believe  that  works  without 
faith  may  be  life,  though  every  sin  must  be  punished, 
proportionately,  not  eternally.  But  from  the  standpoint 
of  orthodoxy  I  find  it  difficult  to  see  how  good  works 
will  benefit  a  man  unless  he  also  repents  and  is  forgiven 
for  all  his  sins,  in  which  case  I  cannot  see  that  he  needs 

the  help  of  his  good  works. 
16 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

THE  foregoing  seven  propositions  cover  the  entire 
discussion  with  the  Bishop.  My  last  letter  has 
remained  unanswered,  and  although  I  have  frequently 
met  him  since  he  received  it,  he  has  never  even  alluded 
to  the  subject. 

Of  course  he  does  not  feel  that  he  is  unable  to  answer : 
he  could  undoubtedly  write  thousands  of  pages  in  response. 
I  suppose  he  has  merely  concluded  that  further  corre- 
spondence would  be  a  waste  of  time  without  advantage  to 
either  side.  If  such  be  his  conclusion,  he  is  right  to  a 
certain  extent.  Judging  from  the  past,  every  argument 
which  he  can  adduce  is,  when  properly  considered,  but 
additional  evidence  of  the  weakness  of  his  cause.  The 
argument  on  both  sides  is  of  long  pendency.  Every  year 
brings  new  light  and  power  to  the  opponents  of  ortho- 
doxy, but  the  argument  on  the  side  of  the  Church  re- 
mains unchanged,  and  by  the  very  theory  of  the  religion 
must  ever  so  remain. 

That  theory  is,  as  I  understand  it,  that  some  1893  years 
ago  God  became  incarnate  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth for  the  purpose  of  redeeming  mankind,  and,  during 
that  incarnation,  established  his  Church  on  earth  to  be,  in 
future,  the  only  medium  through  which  he  should  com- 
municate with  man. 

The  facts  upon  which  the  theory  is  based  are  of  such 
a  character  as  to  appeal  to  faith,  rather  than  to  reason, 
and   no   new   facts   having   been    developed,   or,   indeed, 

242 


DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.  243 

being  possible,  the  argument  is  necessarily  of  great  same- 
ness. It  may  be  brilliant  or  dull,  interesting  or  tiresome, 
learned  or  foolish,  eloquent  or  flat,  according  to  who  is 
the  speaker  or  writer  ;  but  in  its  last  analysis  it  is  always 
the  same,  the  same  old  argument  in  a  circle,  before  al- 
luded to :  Jesus  was  God,  and  having  established  a 
Church  and  promised  to  be  with  it  always,  and  that  the 
gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  it,  the  Church  is 
not  subject  to  error  ;  and  we  know  that  Jesus  was  really 
God  because  the  Church,  thus  shown  to  be  infallible, 
tells  us  so.  Such,  at  least,  has  been  my  experience  of  the 
argument.  Whenever  I  have  heard  that  any  one  has 
successfully  undertaken  the  defence  of  orthodoxy,  I 
have,  when  practicable,  examined  his  arguments,  and, 
so  far,  every  one  of  them  assumes  as  his  premise  some 
of  the  very  points  in  dispute.  If  there  be  any  other  ar- 
gument I  have  not  been  fortunate  enough  to  have  met 
with  it.  I  have  not  studied  or  written  for  the  purpose  of 
self-deception,  nor  with  the  desire  to  mislead  others.  My 
attention  was  drawn  to  the  subject  by  the  conviction  of 
its  vast  importance,  and  I  wanted  nothing  but  truth.  Be- 
lieving, as  I  most  firmly  do,  in  a  future  life  which  is,  to  a 
great  degree  influenced,  certainly  at  its  commencement, 
by  our  life  here  ;  and  our  life  here  being  in  great  measure 
controlled  by  our  religious  belief,  I  felt  that  I  could  not 
afford  to  follow  false  Gods,  to  hold  false  doctrines.  I 
have  therefore  given  to  this  all-important  subject  the 
deepest  thought  and  most  earnest  study  of  which  I  am 
capable,  and  if  my  conclusions  are  wrong  I  am  more  in- 
terested in  finding  my  error  than  any  one  else  possibly 
can  be  ;  and,  if  I  know  myself,  I  am  perfectly  sincere 
when  I  say  that  any  argument  which  will  lead  me  to 
TRUTH  will  be  most  heartily  welcome,  no  matter  what  that 


244  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

truth  may  be.  And  one  of  the  reasons  why  I  have  con- 
sented that  the  foregoing  discussion  should  reach  the 
publicity  of  print,  is  the  hope  that  it  may  draw  forth  the 
fullest  and  freest  criticism  of  the  argument  (as  an  argu- 
ment, not  as  a  literary  production),  that  its  weak  points 
may  be  discovered,  and  strengthened  or  abandoned. 
And  here,  perhaps,  I  might  with  propriety  leave  the 
matter  with  the  public.  I  opened  the  argument,  the 
Bishop  followed,  I  answered,  he  replied,  and  I  concluded. 
I  had  taken  the  affirmative,  the  burden  of  proof  was  on 
me,  and  I  had  the  right  to  the  opening  and  conclusion. 
So  this  is  as  it  should  be.  But  I  yield  to  the  temptation 
to  summarize  a  portion  of  the  argument  already  given  in 
order  to  apply  it  in  a  somewhat  different  manner. 

Most  of  us  who  are  born  in  this  or  any  other  so-called 
Christian  country  are,  while  yet  children,  imbued  with 
the  prevailing  ideas  and  beliefs,  and,  growing  up  with 
them,  very  naturally  consider  them  as  most  certainly  true. 
We  surround  them  with  all  the  sacred  affection  of  our 
earlier  associations,  our  helpless  infancy  sustained  by  a 
mother's  and  a  father's  love  and  devotion  ;  and  they  are 
strengthened  and  supported  by  the  very  superstitions  they 
have  evolved.  Hence  the  first  time  any  of  these  cherished 
ideas  is  attacked,  we  feel  a  shock,  more  or  less  violent  ac- 
cording to  the  interest  felt  in  the  subject,  and  a  very  slight 
argument  against  what  we  consider  a  blasphemy,  and  in 
favor  of  what  we  already  believe  an  unassailable  truth, 
completely  satisfies  the  mind.  And  it  is  only  after  repeated 
and  long-continued  assaults  that  we  ever,  if  we  do  at  all, 
begin  to  feel  the  force  of  the  attacking  power.  This  is  the 
case  with  the  thoughtful,  and  those  who  feel  an  interest 
in  the  matter.  The  majority  of  those  who  conform  to  the 
prevailing  faith  do  so  simply  because  it  is  the  prevailing 


THE    TRUTH*  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.      245 

faith,  and  say,  and  think,  that  the  religion  which  was  good 
enough  for  their  parents  and  other  ancestors  is  good  enough 
for  them,  and  dismiss  the  subject  from  their  minds  as  one 
promising  more  trouble  than  benefit, — more  evil  than 
good.  Such,  of  course,  will  never  read  this  discussion  ; 
they  can  be  reached  only  in  conversation  by  their  more 
thoughtful  friends,  those  who,  like  myself,  realize  the  im- 
portance of  having  a  true  religion— and  it  is  to  such  that 
I  now  address  myself. 

But  instead  of  attacking  the  Church,  entrenched  as  she 
is  behind  so  many  loving  memories,  protected  by  so  much 
affectionate  reverence,  supported  by  such  strong  supersti- 
tious instincts,  and  upheld  by  an  almost  irresistible  force 
of  habit  ;  let  us  change  places,  and  make  her  the  attacking 
party,  giving  her  all  the  weapons  she  is  in  the  habit  of 
using  except  reverence,  superstition,  and  force  of  habit, 
which  she  could  not  use  in  an  attack,  and  let  us  see  what 
her  real  strength  is. 

Let  us,  then,  suppose  a  full-grown  person,  fairly  educated 
in  science  and  scientific  methods,  having  an  average  inteL 
lect,  and  tolerably  well  acquainted  with  nature  as  known 
and  understood  at  this  time,  of  a  religious  or  spiritual  turn 
of  mind,  but  with  no  knowledge  of  any  so-called  revealed 
religion.  Then  let  us  suppose  some  learned  Churchman 
endeavoring  to  convert  such  person  to  the  dogmatic 
Christianity  of  the  present  day. 

Clearly,  the  most  important  point  to  be  established  by 
the  Churchman,  the  one  on  which  all  the  other  dogmas 
are  based,  or  to  which  they  point,  is  the  divinity  of  Jesus, 
or,  in  other  words,  what  the  Bishop  has  called  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  all  Christianity,  the  Incarnation.  If 
this  doctrine  be  true,  the  others  may  follow ;  if  it  be  false, 
they  must  fall. 


246  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

The  supposed  fairly  educated  person  has  learned  from 
his  studies  that  the  earth,  on  which  he  lives,  is  one  of  a 
series  of  planets  revolving  around  the  sun.  That  as  to 
size,  location,  composition,  it  is  neither  the  most  nor  the 
least  favored.  That  Mars,  which  we  have  the  best  chance 
of  observing,  closely  resembles  Earth,  is  divided  into  con- 
tinents  and  seas,  is  cold  at  both  poles,  and  has  an  atmos- 
phere. There  is  no  reason  that  he  can  conceive  of  why 
Mars,  at  least,  should  not  be  inhabited  by  beings  similar 
to  those  in  this  world.  The  same  is  true  of  Venus.  Hence 
he  concludes  that  the  probabilities  are  that  the  other 
planets  of  our  system  are,  have  been,  or  are  getting  to  be, 
in  a  similar  condition,  as  the  process  of  formation  of  all  the 
planets  in  our  system  is  evidently  the  same — from  a 
nebulous,  to  a  liquid,  to  a  solid,  to  a  cool  state,  indicating 
birth,  infancy,  youth,  and  maturity,  to  be  followed,  proba- 
bly, by  old  age  and  decrepitude,  as  is  supposed  to  be  the 
case  with  our  moon. 

So  he  reasons  that  during  the  period  of  maturity  all  the 
planets  must  be  fit  for  human  life  as  we  know  it.  There 
is  unity  of  design  in  all  organic  life  on  this  planet,  there  is 
unity  of  design  in  all  the  planets ;  why  should  not  the 
unity  of  design  in  all  that  is  seen  be  assumed  to  extend  to 
that  which  is  not  seen  ?  Or  perhaps  it  would  be  better 
to  say  why  should  we  assume  that  the  unity  which  runs 
through  all  we  see  ceases  with  our  range  of  vision  ?  Why 
should  we  assume  that  all  these  planets,  fitted  for  the 
highest  known  forms  of  life,  should  be  left  as  waste  places 
in  the  universe,  useless  for  every  purpose  of  which  we  can 
conceive  ?  No  reason  can  be  given  ;  on  the  contrary 
analogy  would  seem  to  indicate  that  in  our  system,  at 
least,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  many,  if  not  all, 
of  the  planets,  are,  have   been,  or  will  be,  inhabited   by 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.      247 

intelligent  beings  similar,  in  at  least  many  respects,  to 
those  of  earth. 

Then,  going  beyond  our  solar  system,  he  finds  innu- 
merable quantities  of  what  are  called  fixed  stars,  so  called 
because  their  vast  distance  from  us  renders  their  motion 
almost  imperceptible.  These  stars  are  known  to  be  vast 
globes  of  matter  shining  by  theit  own  light.  Hence,  by 
analogy,  they  are  assumed  to  be  suns  similar  to  our  own  ; 
and  it  is  also  supposed  that  they  are,  each  of  them,  centres 
of  solar  systems  like  ours,  and,  almost  necessarily,  like 
ours  teeming  with  intelligent  life.  How  many  of  these 
systems  there  are  we  cannot  possibly  conceive,  since  we 
can  neither  conceive  of  space  without  limit,  nor  of  space 
with  limit.  We  cannot  comprehend  either  eternity  or 
infinity,  though  we  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  both 
exist  from  our  inability  to  conceive  of  the  cessation  of 
time,  or  of  what  could  have  preceded  or  can  follow  its  ex- 
istence, or  of  the  cessation  of  space  or  of  what  could  lie 
beyond  its  limits.  So,  then,  as  it  seems  to  our  student,  he 
must  conclude  that  the  universe  includes  an  infinity  of 
worlds  which  are,  which  have  been,  or  which  will  be,  like 
ours,  and  equally  inhabited  by  intelligent  beings. 

It  is  true  that  this  conclusion  is  largely  speculative,  but 
it  seems  to  be  entirely  justified  by  the  facts.  What  is 
absolutely  known  is  only  what  we  learn  from  the  telescope 
and  the  spectroscope.  They  tell  us  that  space  is  filled 
with  bodies  composed  of  the  same  materials  as  our  sun, 
and  in  the  same  condition,  and  of  even  greater  magnitude. 
Reasoning  from  the  known  to  the  unknown,  we  conclude 
that  they  are  suns,  and  planetary  centres,  and  can  conceive 
of  no  reason  why  in  all  this  illimitable  universe  an  average 
planet,  of  an  average  solar  system,  should  be  the  only  one 
possessing  intelligent  life.     The  logical  mind  revolts  from 


248  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

the  idea.  There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  nothing  remarkable 
about  the  earth  in  its  composition,  situation,  or  condition 
to  exalt  it  above  its  fellows.  There  is  absolutely  nothing 
unusual  about  it :  why  then  should  we  assume,  while  it  is, 
to  say  the  most  for  it,  only  an  average  world  so  far  as  we 
know  other  worlds,  that  it  is  so  immeasurably  superior 
in  all  those  points  upon  which  we  know  nothing  about  all 
other  worlds  ?  Such  an  assumption  is  utterly  without  any 
reason  to  sustain  it. 

Hence  we  have  a  reasonable  degree  of  certainty  that 
the  entire  universe  teems  with  intelligent  life ;  and  we 
know  that  the  whole  observable  universe  is  governed  by 
fixed  law. 

All  this  points  to  a  God  ;  not  because  we  can  compre- 
hend what  God  is,  or  why,  or  how,  He  should  exist;  but 
just  as  we  are  forced  to  admit  eternity  because  we  cannot 
conceive  of  anything  before  or  after  time  ;  to  admit  infinity 
because  we  cannot  conceive  of  anything  beyond  space  ; 
nor  even  think  of  the  non-existence  of  either  ;  so  we  must, 
as  it  seems  to  him,  admit  God,  because  we  cannot  conceive 
of  universal  law,  order,  and  intelligence,  without  also  con- 
ceiving of  a  universal  source,  or  centre,  from  which  they 
flow,  of  which  they  are  a  part,  or  an  emanation  ;  for  law, 
order,  and  intelligence  imply  design,  and  design  cannot, 
by  its  very  nature,  be  self-originating. 

That  we  cannot  tell  the  origin  of  this  source,  or  centre, 
does  not  affect  the  argument,  because  we  cannot  tell  the 
origin  of  either  time  or  matter,  though  both  assuredly 
exist.  We  can  only  go  back  within  finite  limits;  and 
when  we  have  gone  back  to  the  earliest  source  of  which 
we  can  conceive,  that  is,  for  us,  the  first  Great  Cause,  that 
must  be  our  God  ;  and  if  there  be  any  other  cause  or 
source  beyond  that  again,  It  is  what  we  mean  when  we 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.      249 

think  of  God  ;  for  this  source,  or  centre,  or  primal  cause, 
is  what  we  call  God,  the  Supreme  Intelligence,  and  must, 
from  its  nature,  pervade  all  time  and  space,  past,  present, 
and  to  come,  must,  in  a  word,  be  eternal  and  infinite  ;  be- 
lieved in  because  felt  to  be  a  necessity  indicated  by  all 
Nature,  but  incomprehensible,  because  above,  beyond, 
superior  to,  and  out  of  the  realm  of  our  reason. 

This  God,  revealed  to  man  through  His  own  works  in 
nature,  is,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  case  must  be,  as  we 
are  taught  by  nature,  omnipresent,  omnipotent,  omniscient; 
and,  consequently,  as  we  have  already  seen,  He  cannot  be 
angry,  because  anger  necessarily  implies  discontent,  and 
discontent  means  disappointment— that  matters  have  not 
gone  to  suit  Him.  We  also  know,  from  the  same  teacher, 
that  He  never  interferes  with  His  works  because  they 
were  and  are  perfect,  and  in  accordance  with  His  perfect 
plans  ;  that  He  sustains,  not  alters  ;  and  hence  is  unchange- 
able. That  He  is  Love  and  Truth,  and  neither  hates  nor 
deceives.  That  He  acts  through  Law,  and  evolves,  rather 
than  manufactures;  and  necessarily  governs  and  maintains 
all  things  in  accordance  with  His  original,  eternal  design, 
unchanged  and  unchangeable  because  now  and  always 
perfect  even  in  its  minutest  details. 

Such  would  be,  in  brief,  the  views  of  Divinity  enter- 
tained by  such  a  person  as  I  have  supposed,  being  what 
a  religiously  disposed,  highly  spiritualized,  but  healthy 
and  sane  mind,  would  naturally  deduce  from  its  study  of 
nature. 

The  truth  of  his  belief  may  not  be  outwardly  demon- 
strable ;  but  I  know  of  no  argument  that  can  disprove  it. 
It  is,  to  a  great  extent,  a  matter  of  faith,  but  of  that 
higher  faith  of  which  I  have  already  spoken,  which  only 
assumes   to  control  in  regions  where  reason  admits  her 


250  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

inability  to  penetrate ;  that  truer,  purer  faith  which  be- 
lieves nothing  which  reason  rejects,  and  relies  on  that 
only  which  reason  may  accept. 

What,  then,  is  this  man  asked  to  believe?  That  the 
God  whom  he  adores  made  man  so  bunglingly  that 
His  expectations  of  him  were  not  realized.  That  He 
gave  His  creature,  man,  free-will,  power  to  oppose  Him, 
to  thwart  Him,  and  that  man  used  this  perilous  gift  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  cause  God  to  repent  that  He  had 
ever  created  him,  and  to  determine  to  destroy  him.  That 
He  did  destroy  him,  all  save  eight,  and  started  a  new  race, 
a  new  experiment.  That  the  new  experiment  succeeded 
no  better  than  the  first,  and  the  first  remedy,  destruction, 
having  proved  of  no  avail,  He  determined  to  try  another 
plan,  atonement.  That  one  of  the  necessary  details  (and 
the  chiefest  of  them  all)  of  this  plan  was  what  is  now 
called  the  Incarnation.  That  He  accordingly  caused  a 
maiden,  who  was  espoused  to  Joseph,  but  who  had  never 
known  man,  to  become  enceinte  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  through 
an  unexplained  process,  to  bear  her  child  for  the  usual 
time,  to  be  purified  after  its  birth  (though  purification  for 
giving  birth  to  God  would  seem  to  have  been  somewhat 
unnecessary),  and  to  raise  him  up  to  the  carpenter's  trade 
until  he  was  thirty  years  of  age.  That  this  child  so  be- 
gotten, born,  and  reared,  was  God  Himself  veiled  as  a  man. 
That  Jesus  was  very  man  and  very  God.  That  there  is 
God,  the  Father — God,  the  Holy  Ghost — and  God,  the 
Son — yet  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God.  That  although 
in  the  world  of  which  science  takes  notice  3  times  1  are  3, 
in  the  world  of  which  theology  assumes  control,  3  times 
1  is  one.  That  this  new  and  remarkable  experiment  has 
not  succeeded  in  1893  years,  but  is  still  progressing,  and 
there  are  strong  hopes  that  it  will  succeed  yet, — in  fact  it 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       25 1 

must  succeed — as  it  is  God's  own  plan — but  when  is  not 
yet  known. 

Our  supposed  student  would  very  naturally  suggest 
that  this  is  a  very  remarkable  story  ;  that  it  shows  a  very 
childish  (perhaps  I  should  say  primitive)  conception  of 
God  ;  that  it  is  at  variance  with  all  experience,  and  all 
that  is  known  of  nature  ;  that  it  represents  Him  as  uncer- 
tain, changeable,  and  not  very  wise;  and  respectfully  begs 
to  know  what  is  the  evidence  to  support  so  strange  a  tale. 

In  reply  he  is  referred  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  com- 
prising both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  with  the 
assurance  that  they  are  the  word  of  God,  and  are  the 
source  of  all  our  information  on  the  subject,  except 
such  as  we  derive  from  the  traditions  of  the  Church  ; 
but  as  such  traditions  are  in  confirmation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  their  authenticity  and  validity  are  dependent 
upon  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  which  infallibility 
is  founded  on  the  Bible,  the  Bible  is  really  the  all- 
sufficient  basis  of  the  whole  system. 

As  our  unregenerate  friend  is  supposed  to  be  entirely 
ignorant  of  any  revealed  religion,  he,  of  course,  cannot 
make  any  analytical  comparison  between  other  religions 
than  that  which  he  is  invited  to  adopt  ;  and  we  will  also 
assume  that  he  knows  nothing  of  the  history  of  the  Bible 
— not  Bible-history — but  the  history  of  how  and  when 
the  books  of  the  Bible  were  written.  He  is  therefore 
compelled  to  rely  upon  the  book  itself,  without  outside 
aid.  Hence  he  will  carefully  study  it,  not  as  it  is  studied 
by  those  who  accept  it  before  they  know  anything  what- 
ever about  it,  and  take  it  all  as  a  matter  not  to  be  ques- 
tioned ;  but  fairly,  candidly,  and  earnestly,  and  equally 
without  prejudice  for  or  against  it.  But  he  studies  it 
critically,  and  for  this  reason  :  he  knows  that  the  book  he 


252  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

has  been  trying  to  read,  Nature,  is  God's  word,  and  that 
the  only  element  of  error  which  he  has  hitherto  had  to 
contend  with  was  false  interpretation  of  what  he  saw  ; 
while  in  the  book  now  offered  to  him  as  God's  written 
word  the  elements  of  error  must  be  legion.  The  inherent 
inability  of  human  language  to  always  accurately  convey 
human  thought,  let  alone  Divine  wisdom  ;  the  possible 
carelessness,  incompetency,  or  even  design,  of  the  original 
writer,  or  of  some  of  the  numerous  subsequent  scribes  ; 
the  mistakes  or  interpolations  of  translators  ;  the  suppres- 
sions or  additions  of  interested  editors  ;  the  facility  with 
which  marginal  glosses,  conveying  the  ideas  of  the  copyist, 
or  editor,  may  be  by  some  subsequent  copyist  or  editor 
incorporated  into  the  text  ;  and  many,  many  more  fruitful 
sources  of  error,  intentional  and  unintentional,  will  suggest 
themselves  to  him,  and  any  one  of  them  may  materially 
change  the  original  meaning.  He  therefore  naturally 
requires  pretty  clear  evidence  to  convince  him,  when  the 
Bible  is  in  conflict  with  Nature,  that  the  Bible  is  right  and 
Nature  wrong. 

Commencing  then,  at  the  beginning,  he  discovers  that 
the  account  of  creation,  as  contained  in  the  first  chapter 
of  the  first  book,  is  not  only  inaccurate,  but  actually 
absurd  ;  that  the  story  of  the  creation  of  man  is  utterly 
at  variance  with  well-known  facts  of  ethnology  ;  that  the 
dates  and  order  of  the  various  events  recorded  are 
totally  inconsistent  with  the  demonstrated  facts  of  Geol- 
ogy and  Archaeology.  That  the  story  of  the  Deluge,  a 
little  farther  on,  whether  it  be  viewed  as  universal,  as  it  is 
distinctly  and  clearly  stated  to  have  been,  or  partial,  as 
some'  apologists  now  claim,  is  simply  an  imaginative 
account  of  a  physical  and  natural  impossibility  which 
could  have  originated  only  among  a  people  entirely  igno- 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       2$$ 

rant  of  the  plainest  facts  of  nature,  and  which  can  be  be- 
lieved only  by  those  who  are  equally  ignorant,  or  else 
who  refuse  to  apply  their  knowledge  to  the  story  but 
"  swallow  it  whole,"  as  the  whale,  still  farther  on,  is  said 
to  have  swallowed  Jonah.  And  he  finds  that  the  far- 
ther he  goes  into  the  book,  the  more  of  such  impossible 
stories  does  he  discover. 

Further  examination  satisfies  him  that  it  is  unlikely 
that  Moses  wrote  the  account  of  his  own  death  and  burial, 
announcing  where  he  was  buried,  his  age  at  the  time  of 
his  death,  and  the  lamentations  over  his  loss,  with  the 
additional  fact  that  no  man  knew  the  exact  locality  of  his 
grave  ;  and  that  as  such  details  are  a  part  of  the  recog- 
nized text  of  Deuteronomy,  and  written  in  the  same  style  as 
the  other  portions  of  it,  the  probabilities  are  that  some  one 
else  than  Moses  wrote  the  whole  book.  An  examination 
and  comparison  of  dates  makes  this  still  more  clear,  not 
only  with  reference  to  this,  but  with  reference  to  all  of  the 
five  so-called  books  of  Moses,  and  to  those  of  other  reputed 
Bible  authors,  leaving  such  books  to  stand  without  the 
sanction  of  even  a  mythical  name.  Further,  he  observes 
that  if  Moses  be  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  he  represents 
himself  as  advising  God,  arguing  with  Him,  and  inducing 
Him,  God,  to  change  His,  God's,  intentions  on  account  of 
the  new  light  thrown  on  the  subject  by  him,  Moses;  and 
concludes  that  either  Moses  is  a  very  unreliable  reporter,  or 
the  God  he  writes  about  a  rather  inferior  sort  of  a  deity. 

Again,  he  finds  that  this  Moses,  who  is  considered  the 
great  lawgiver  and  chief  teacher  of  the  Jews,  God's  chosen 
people,  this  "  man  of  God,"  either  did  not  know  anything 
of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  or  else  thought  the  infor- 
mation not  worth  giving  to  his  people,  for  nothing  in  his 
books  teaches  that  doctrine. 


2  54  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

Then  he  observes  that  God,  in  the  Old  Testament,  is 
represented  as  countenancing  almost  every  conceivable 
wickedness,  provided  it  is  done  by  His  chosen  people, 
though  unforgiving  and  vindictive  as  to  anything  which 
seemed  to  interfere  with,  or  reflect  upon,  His  own  per- 
sonal pre-eminence  ;  and,  finally,  that  the  record  nowhere 
claims  for  itself  that  it  is  either  inspired  or  infallible — its 
inspired  infallibility  being  a  discovery  of  much  more 
recent  date.1 

Certainly,  so  far,  he  has  found  nothing  to  make  him 
wish  to  substitute  the  Jewish  conception  of  God  for  that 
which  he  has  derived  from  Nature,  and  very  natu- 
rally concludes  that  a  book  so  untrustworthy  as  to  its 
facts  cannot  be  infallible  as  to  its  theories. 

He  now  takes  up  the  New  Testament  to  investigate  the 
Incarnation,  feeling  that  the  all-wise,  all-powerful,  all 
good  God  whom  he  adores,  if  He  had  taken  that  extraor- 
dinary step — if  He  had  so  honored  this  infinitesimally 
small  and  apparently  unremarkable  part  of  His  universe, 
— would  certainly  have  so  arranged  it  that  there  could  be 
no  question  about   the  fact ;  especially  as  the  success  of 

1  Paul  says,  2  Timothy  iii.,  16,  Protestant  version:  "All  Scripture 
is  given  by  inspiration  of  God."  The  Catholic  version  is  not  so  strongly 
put,  but  is  :  "All  Scripture  divinely  inspired  is  profitable  to  teach,"  etc. 
But  in  either  version  it  was  merely  Paul's  opinion  or  assertion,  as  to  the 
holy  writings  as  then  known  and  recognized,  and  those  holy  writings  do  not 
seem  to  have  claimed  inspiration  for  themselves  ;  such  expressions  as 
"the  Lord  saith,"  "thus  spake  the  Lord,"  etc.,  etc.,  when  used  by  the 
writer,  being  no  more  a  claim  of  inspiration  for  themselves  or  their 
writings  than  when  the  same  or  similar  language  is  used  by  a  writer  of 
to-day  ;  it  is  merely  the  recording  of  a  belief  or  tradition,  lhat  the  Lord  had 
at  some  time  and  in  some  place  spoken  such  things,  and  that  the  writer  was 
narrating  the  circumstance  as  he  understood  it.  And  these  remarks  apply 
equally  to  I  Peter  i.,  20,  21,  often  cited  as  claiming  inspiration  for  the 
Bible  ;    and,  besides,   Peter  expressly  limits  inspiration  to  prophecy. 


THE    TRUTH  OE  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       255 

the  plan  depended  more  on  its  being  known  and  believed 
than  on  its  being  performed.  For  he  has  been  assured 
that  the  object  of  the  Incarnation  was  to  save  mankind, 
but  that  no  one  can  or,  rather,  will  be  saved  who  does 
not  believe  in  it  ;  hence,  as  just  indicated,  the  most  im- 
portant part  of  the  whole  scheme  was  that  it  should  not 
merely  be  consummated,  but  believed  ;  and  as  God  could, 
being  all-powerful,  have  so  arranged  the  event,  or,  at  least, 
the  evidence  of  it,  as  to  have  produced  that  belief,  our 
friend  turns  to  the  New  Testament  with  a  feeling  of  relief 
— that  he  will  now  surely  find  something  to  satisfy  his 
mind,  something  to  bring  conviction.  This  is  what  he 
reasonably  expects — let  us  see  what  he  finds. 

He  finds  four  Gospels  asserted  to  have  been  written  by 
four  of  the  followers  of  the  Incarnate  God,  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  He  finds  that  two  of  them, 
Mark  and  John,  give  no  account  of  the  Incarnation. 
Either  they  did  not  know  of  it,  or  did  not  think  it  of  suf- 
ficient importance  to  mention  or  refer  to;  since  this  omis- 
sion could  scarcely  be  because  it  is  mentioned  by  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  for  Mark  and  John  tell  of  a  number  of 
things  of  comparative  insignificance  which  the  other  two 
also  recount,  while  this  event  was  the  most  important  of 
all  that  could  have  occurred,  the  supernatural  character  of 
Jesus'  birth  being  the  sanction  of  his  authority  to  teach. 
Besides,  the  two  stories  of  the  Incarnation  related  by 
Matthew  and  Luke  differ,  showing  that  either  one  or  the 
other  was  wrong,  or  that  neither  knew  the  whole  history 
of  the  affair,  but  related  only  a  part  of  it.  So  that  so  far 
from  the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke  being  a  reason 
why  the  matter  should  not  have  been  referred  to  by  the 
others,  the  differences  in  the  accounts  afforded  an  excel- 
lent opportunity  to  Mark  and  John  to  explain  and  recon- 


256  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

cile  if  they  knew  of  the  story  and  its  relation  by  the 
others  ;  if  they  did  not  know  of  the  story,  it  would  be 
conclusive  evidence  against  its  truth,  and  their  failure  to 
allude  to  events  that  never  occurred  can  be  understood  ; 
but  if  they  knew  of  the  story,  and  did  not  know  of  its 
relation  by  the  others,  it  is  in  order  for  our  teachers  to 
explain  their  silence. 

All  this  is  rather  discouraging,  and  our  friend's  expec- 
tations are  not  as  great  as  they  were.  Still,  he  turns  to 
Matthew  and  Luke  for  light.- 

So  far  as  he  can  see,  according  to  Matthew  the  only 
reason  for  believing  in  the  supernatural  conception  is  a 
dream  of  Joseph,  after  Mary's  condition  is  known  to  him  ; 
according  to  Luke,  a  vision  of  Mary,  before  the  conception, 
and  the  interview  with  Elizabeth.  Each  evangelist  ap- 
parently tells  all  he  knows  about  it,  and  neither  alludes  to 
the  story  told  by  the  other,  and  as  each  is  supposed  to 
have  been  inspired  of  God  (for  the  value  of  their  writings 
is  from  their  supposed  inspiration),  and  hence  to  have 
known  all  about  it  from  high  authority,  besides  what  he 
may  have  learned  from  Mary  and  Joseph,  the  two  ac- 
counts are  really  irreconcilable.  But  assuming  that  the 
two  writers  were  not  so  fully  informed,  but  only  wrote 
what  each  knew,  or  what  he  thought  he  knew  (which 
would  effectually  dispose  of  the  inspiration  theory),  the 
whole  story,  combining  both  accounts,  amounts  to  this  : 
Mary,  at  the  time  of  her  espousal  to  Joseph,  found  her- 
self in  a  condition  which  imperatively  demanded  expla- 
nation. She  explained  it  by  telling  of  her  vision  ;  Joseph, 
a  just  man,  and,  from  the  little  we  know  of  him,  probably 
a  weak  one,  and  very  much  in  love  with  Mary,  slept  over 
his  troubles,  and  dreamed  that  her  explanation  was  true. 
This  must,  as  it  seems  to  him,  have  been  the  case  if  there 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       2$? 

was  any  truth  at  all  in  the  story.  But  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  it  is  merely  announced  that  Mary  and  Joseph  had 
such  vision  and  dream  ;  it  is  not  claimed  that  even  they 
so  asserted ;  the  authority  for  the  story  is  not  given. 
And  the  story  of  the  interview  with  Elizabeth  adds  abso- 
lutely nothing  to  the  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  incident. 
So  much  for  the  conception;  now  for  his  life. 

After  his  birth  Jesus  lived  just  as  other  children,  so  far 
as  we  are  informed,  and  he  learned  and  followed  his 
father's  trade  as  a  carpenter  until  he  was  about  thirty 
years  of  age.  Is  it  likely  that  his  mother  and  Joseph, 
had  they  known  of  his  miraculous  conception,  and  that  he 
was  very  God,  would  have  so  treated  him  ?  Would  their 
poverty  have  caused  them  to  allow  their  God-guest  to 
work  for  his  food  and  clothes  ?  It  seems  hardly  probable  ; 
his  Godship  must  have  been  veiled  even  from  them. 
And  that  it  was  so  veiled,  even  from  Mary  his  mother 
and  Joseph,  is  made  still  more  apparent  (Luke  ii.,  46-50) 
by  the  fact  that,  when  Mary  and  Joseph  found  him  in 
the  temple  disputing  with  the  doctors,  his  mother  re- 
proached him  for  leaving  them,  and  on  his  replying  that 
he  must  be  about  his  Father's  business,  she  and  Joseph 
understood  not  what  he  meant. 

But  further  than  this,  if  God  had  incarnated  Himself  in 
this  extraordinary  manner,  and  made  the  belief  in  such 
incarnation  the  most  important  matter  of  salvation,  is  it 
conceivable  that  he  should  never  once  allude  to  the  won- 
derful circumstances  of  his  birth?  Or  that,  having  al- 
luded to  it,  such  allusion  should  not  have  been  recorded 
and  preserved  ?  Yet  it  does  not  appear  that  he  even 
knew  of  such  a  report. 

And  those  living  in  the  house  with  him  (his  "  brethren  ") 
did  not  believe  in  him  ;  and  they  and  his  mother  interfered 
17 


258  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

with  him  and  tried  to  interrupt  his  preaching,  which  would 
hardly  have  been  done  had  they  known,  or  believed,  him 
to  be  God-incarnate. 

And  to  the  very  last  some  of  his  disciples  doubted,  even 
if  any  ever  believed  in,  his  divinity,  and  there  is  no  proof 
that  any  of  them  ever  did  so  believe,  and  if  there  were,  it 
would  not  be  evidence  of  his  divinity,  but  only  evidence 
that  some  thought  him  divine  then  as  many  do  now. 

Again,  he  finds  upon  examination  that  the  so-called 
prophecies,  said  to  have  foretold  Jesus'  coming,  have  no 
more  reference  to  him  than  to  us.  That  the  "  inspired  " 
genealogies  of  Jesus  fatally  and  absurdly  vary,  and  that  the 
attempt  to  explain  the  variance  by  supposing  one  gene- 
alogy to  be  that  of  Joseph  and  the  other  to  be  that  of 
Mary,  is  without  authority  or  reason,  because  nothing  of 
the  sort  is  said  or  intimated  in  the  account,  and  the  Jews 
never  traced  descents  through  the  female ;  that,  however, 
even  if  this  explanation  were  true  (which,  of  course,  is  not 
the  case),  it  would  still  leave  the  absurdity  of  tracing  Jesus' 
descent  from  David  tJirougJi  Joseph  while  claiming  that 
he  was  not  descended  in  any  manner  from  Joseph.  Fur- 
ther, that  if  the  Messiah  was  to  be  of  the  line  of  David, 
Jesus  could  not  have  been  the  Messiah,  because  He  was 
not  of  David's,  or  any  other  human  line,  but  was  direct 
from  God,  nay,  was  God. 

That  Jesus,  if  ever  claiming  to  be  more  than  man, 
did  so  in  such  ambiguous  terms  as  to  allow  of  different 
constructions,  or  in  so  contradictory  a  manner  as  to  throw 
doubt  upon  the  claim,  and  to  throw  doubt  upon  a  matter 
the  belief  of  which  was  essential  to  salvation  would  have 
been  a  crime,  and  totally  foreign  to  Jesus'  character. 

That  the  miracles  ascribed  to  Him,  and  even  His  resur- 
rection and  ascension,  though  not  doctrines,  but  described 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       259 

as  facts,  and  the  most  wonderful  and  important  facts  in 
the  history  of  the  world,  and  said  to  have  happened  within 
historic  times,  in  the  midst  of  numerous  contemporary 
writers  who,  recounting  many  very  much  less  important 
and  interesting  events,  would  hardly  have  failed  to  notice 
these  stupendous  ones,  and  which  should  therefore  be 
sustained  by  overwhelming  contemporaneous  evidence, 
are,  on  the  contrary,  without  further  proof  than  the  bare 
assertions  of  those  who  were  forming  a  sect,  and  therefore 
interested  in  having  such  things  believed,  but  who  do  not 
even  pretend  to  have  themselves  witnessed  these  occur- 
rences. 

Is  the  evidence  sufficient  to  the  end  ?  Could  any  rea- 
sonable man,  with  his  mind  free  from  bias,  be  satisfied  with 
such  testimony  ?  Would  any  one  believe  the  Church's 
dogma  who  had  not  been  taught  to  believe  it  before  he 
could  think  and  reason,  while  yet  a  child,  or  in  the  mental 
condition  of  a  child  ?  Is  there  any  reason  why  all  nature 
should  be  false,  and  the  Hebrew-Gentile  Bible  true? 

Verily,  we  cannot  blame  our  friend  if  he  thinks  the  In- 
carnation lacks  confirmation,  and  declines  to  change  his 
views  and  lower  his  conception  of  his  God  ;  refuses  to  be- 
lieve that  God  would  make  man's  salvation  through  all 
time  and  eternity  depend  upon  his  believing  an  asserted 
phenomenon  which  is  contrary  to  all  experience,  and 
which  is  supported  by  evidence  so  flimsy  that  it  failed  to 
convince  those  living  at  the  very  time  and  place  where  it 
is  claimed  to  have  occurred.  The  New  Testament  seems 
to  him  no  better  than  the  Old,  and  both  to  conflict  with 
what  little  we  do  know  of  nature  and  of  God. 

And  if  his  would-be  teacher  can  show  him  wherein  he  is 
wrong,  he  is  wiser  than  the  teachers  I  have  met. 

I  have  thus  epitomized  some  of  the  points  made  in  the 


26o  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

foregoing  argument  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating  how 
weak  the  cause  of  the  Church  really  is  when  deprived  of 
the  mere  sentiment  and  force  of  habit  that  sustain  it.  I 
have  nowhere  gone  into  the  question  of  the  authenticity, 
correctness,  or  age  of  the  books  of  either  Testament,  I 
have  merely  referred  to  it,  for  my  purpose,  as  I  have  said, 
has  been  to  present  a  plain,  common-sense  view  of  dog- 
matic Christianity  as  it  exists  at  the  present  time,  and  to 
discuss  and  point  out  what  I  conceive  to  be  its  errors  in  a 
way  that  may  be  understood  without  previous  theological 
study,  and  without  too  close  application.  But  to  those 
who  desire  to  know  more  on  the  subject,  as  well  as  to  have 
a  much  more  complete  argument  against  ecclesiasticism,  I 
suggest  the  reading  of  the  books  already  referred  to,  and 
quoted  from  by  me. 

As  to  the  position  so  frequently  taken  by  those  who  fail 
in  the  argument  in  behalf  of  orthodoxy — that  the  fact  that 
so  many  great,  wise,  and  good  men  and  women  have  be- 
lieved, and  do  believe,  in  the  Church's  dogmas  and  doc- 
trines, should  be  considered  as  an  argument  in  the  Church's 
favor,  and  that  some  religion  is  necessary  to  man,  and 
that  the  Christian  religion  is  the  best  form  known,  and 
should  not  be  interfered  with,  even  if  it  be  full  of  errors, 
I  have  already  so  fully  discussed,  and,  as  I  hope,  disposed 
of,  these  points  in  considering  the  influence  of  the  Church 
on  man,  that  I  do  not  care  to  add  to,  or  even  summarize, 
what  I  have  there  said  ;  but  I  will  give  some  additional 
illustrations  of  the  harm  that  is  yet  being  done  by  a  dog- 
matic Church,  whether  it  teach  the  best-known  form  of 
religion  or  not,  though  in  doing  so  I  necessarily  repeat 
and  enlarge  upon  what  has  been  said  before. 

In  this,  and  most  other  civilized  countries,  the  Protes- 
tant division  of  Christianity  is  allowed  quite  a  large  lati- 


THE    TRUTH   OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       26 1 

tude  in  matters  of  doctrine,  and  many  who  deem  them- 
selves very  orthodox  reject  much  that  is  held  to  be  essen- 
tial by  the  Roman  Catholics,  and  even  by  some  sects  of 
Protestants.  But  there  are  certain  doctrines  taught  from 
all  orthodox  pulpits,  so  far  as  I  am  informed,  which  seem 
to  me  not  only  erroneous,  but  to  work  great  harm  ;  and  I 
now  briefly  notice  one  or  two  of  the  more  prominent  of 
these. 

The  doctrine  that  Jesus  is  God  gives,  as  I  think,  not 
only  a  false  but  pernicious  conception  of  Deity.  It  may 
increase  our  idea  of  our  own  importance  and  dignity,  but 
it  does  it  at  the  cost  of  lowering  our  conception  of  the 
Almighty  ;  for  to  suppose  Him  anxious  to  save  mankind 
from  His  own  vengeance,  to  make  them  friends  with  Him, 
to  reform  their  evil  ways — all  of  which,  by  an  all-powerful 
God  could  have  been  done  by  the  mere  exercise  of  His 
volition,— by  incarnating  Himself  in  a  foetus  for  nine 
months,  and  in  a  child,  youth,  and  man  for  thirty  years, 
before  He  should  begin  to  act,  and  then  acting  in  an  in- 
efficient way  for  three  years,  and  dying  prematurely  on 
the  cross,  and  after  some  1893  years  of  waiting  to  be  no 
nearer  the  attainment  of  His  wishes  than  at  first,  certainly 
seems  to  me  to  be  a  low  conception  of  God  ;  and  it  is  no 
answer  to  say  that  we  have  no  right  to  question  His  acts, 
or  His  wisdom,  and  that  because  all  this  is  mysterious  and 
incomprehensible,  it  is  none  the  less  true.  I  admit  that 
we  have  no  right  to  question  either  the  acts  or  the  wisdom 
of  God  ;  but  as  I  have  said  before  in  this  connection  (Prop. 
I.  b.)  it  certainly  is  our  right  to  be  assured  that  the  act  IS 
the  act  of  God  before  we  yield  to  it  the  respect  to  which 
it  would  be  thereby  entitled.  We  may  admit  the  possi- 
bility of  even  the  Incarnation,  on  the  ground  that  all  is 
possible  with  God  ;  but  this  does  not  preclude  our  examin- 


262  AN   INQUIRY  INTO 

ing  to  ascertain  if  this  possible,  but  improbable,  thing  was 
really  done.  The  mere  fact  that  the  story  is  mysterious 
and  incomprehensible  does  not  prove  it  true,  and  the 
narrated  event  to  be  the  act  of  God,  though  some  would 
seem  to  think  so.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  seem  that  if 
a  purely  human  and  finite  mind  can  see  how  an  object 
could  have  been  actually  attained  by  simple  and  natural 
means,  the  probability  is  that  Infinite  Wisdom  would  have 
seen  as  much  ;  and  when  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  In- 
finite Wisdom  rejected  the  natural,  obvious,  and  effective 
plan  and  adopted  one  mysterious,  incomprehensible,  and 
entirely  inefficient,  we  should  require  indubitable  proof 
before  throttling  our  intelligence  and  surrendering  our 
reason. 

Without  further  discussing  the  reasons  for  believing  in 
the  divinity  of  Jesus,  or  the  contrary,  leaving  the  truth  of 
the  belief  to  be  determined  from  what  has  already  been 
said,  let  us  see  wherein  it  is  pernicious. 

We  are  told  that  Jesus  was  the  only  perfect  man,  and 
that  he  was  perfect  only  because  he  was  God.  That  we 
must  try  to  be  perfect  even  as  he  was  perfect,  but  that  we 
cannot  succeed,  not  being,  as  was  he,  divine.  This  dis- 
courages many  from  attempting  to  follow  the  impossible- 
of-attainment  example  of  his  life ;  whereas  if  they  were 
taught  that  Jesus  was  but  man,  and  that  it  is  possible  for 
any  other  man  to  live  as  pure,  holy,  good,  innocent,  and 
useful  a  life  as  he  did,  many  would  be  encouraged  to  try 
it.  In  this  way  the  example  of  his  life  would  be  utilized, 
and  not  wasted  as  it  is  under  the  Incarnation  theory.  Then 
it  could  be  held  out  as  a  point  of  perfection  to  be  reached  ; 
now  it  is  set  up  as  an  example  impossible  of  imitation  ;  and 
the  really  sublime  lessons  of  his  life  and  actual  teachings 
are  lost  sight  of  in  the  assumed  benefits  of  his  death. 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       263 

Again,  while  told  that  we  must  follow  his  example, 
though  without  the  possibility  (he  being  God)  of  doing  so 
successfully,  we  are  further  told  that,  no  matter  how  good 
we  may  be,  no  matter  how  near  we  may  come  in  acts  to 
imitating  his,  no  amount  of  honesty,  honor,  charity, 
morality,  and  virtue  will  avail  in  the  slightest  degree  to  save 
us,  unless  we  also  believe  that  Jesus  was  God,  that  he  died 
to  save  us,  and  that  we  can  be  saved  in  no  other  way.  As  I 
have  fully  argued,  and,  I  trust,  established,  belief "is  beyond 
our  control.  Hence  many  who  feel  the  impulse  to  lead 
virtuous  lives,  but  who  are  utterly  unable  to  believe  those 
dogmas,  but  do  believe  what  they  have  been  taught  about 
the  effect  of  such  unbelief,  determine  that  if  they  are  to  be 
finally  damned  in  any  event,  they  will  have  a  "  good  time  " 
while  they  are  here,  and  so  fall  into  various  kinds  of  im- 
morality, the  religion  they  have  been  taught  making  them 
believe  that  virtue  of  itself  alone  is  worthless  in  the  sight 
of  God. 

Besides,  taught  that  God  has  made  a  man's  salvation 
dependent  on  something  beyond  the  man's  control — 
belief  ;  knowing  that  the  belief  which  a  man  holds  when 
grown  depends  in  most  instances  on  that  of  his  parents, 
and,  hence,  on  the  circumstances  in  which  God  has  caused 
him  to  be  born  ;  that  if  he  examines  into  the  question  for 
himself  his  belief  must  be  determined  by  evidence  and 
argument  and  not  by  volition  ;  that  God  could  have  given 
satisfactory  evidence  of  what  was  true,  or  could  have  so 
arranged  that  the  truth  should  be  known  to  and  believed 
by  all  men,  and  would  not ;— his  mind  refuses  to  believe  in 
so  monstrous  a  conception  of  Deity,  and  knowing  none 
other,  he  flies  to  materialism  pure  and  simple,  and  dies 
uncheered  by  any  hope  of  a  higher  life  ;  and,  unless  he  is 
naturally  good  and  philosophic,  he  will  not  live  a  life  of  as 


264  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

much  purity  and  usefulness  to  his  fellow-men  as  he  would 
were  he  otherwise,  and  truly,  instructed. 

Again,  the  doctrine  deduced  from  the  Incarnation  and 
its  sub-theories,  that,  on  account  of  Jesus  having,  by  his 
death,  taken  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  a  man  may  live  a 
life  utterly  at  variance  with  all  morality  and  virtue,  and 
yet,  by  a  tardy  repentance  and  belief,  be  relieved  from  the 
penalties  and  consequences  of  his  vicious  acts,  and  be  for- 
ever blessed,  causes  many  to  persist  in  living  more  in 
accordance  with  the  promptings  of  the  flesh  than  the 
aspirations  of  the  spirit,  trusting  to  wash  out  all  the  past 
with  the  atoning  blood  of  Jesus. 

Thus  this  one  dogma,  with  the  doctrines  necessarily 
flowing  from  it,  has  within  it  not  only  error,  but  the  po- 
tentiality of  great  harm  ;  and  that  potentiality  has  acted, 
and  is  acting  now,  to  the  great  injury  of  humanity  and 
human  progress  by  driving  many  of  the  most  earnest  and 
thoughtful  of  our  race  out  of  the  paths  of  rectitude  and 
beyond  the  pale  of  all  religion. 

Then  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  as  punish- 
ment, generally  supposed  to  be  endless, — the  great  dogma 
of  hell, — has  the  effect  of  hardening  the  heart  and  deaden- 
ing the  sensibilities,  lessening  the  appreciation  of  justice, 
confounding  degrees  of  crime,  and  tending  to  develop 
the  most  heartless  selfishness,  by  teaching  that  it  is  divine 
justice,  wisdom,  and  mercy  to  punish  forever  and  cruelly 
the  sin  of  a  moment;  that  cruelty  may  be  justice,  and 
may  be  deserved  ;  that  crimes  of  action  are  as  nothing 
compared  to  the  crime  of  unbelief;  that  one  unrepented 
sin  is  as  bad  as  another,  and  the  moral  man  who  doubts 
the  Church  worse  than  the  murderer  who  finally  believes 
it ;  and  that  we  may  enjoy  not  only  contentment,  but 
supreme  bliss  and  happiness,  in  heaven,  with  the  dearest 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.       265 

and  most  beloved  wife,  child,  or  parent  in  hell ;  and  by 
making  us  suppose  that  God  triumphs  (rejoices  over 
success — see  Webster)  over  His  enemies — His  own  cre- 
ation, His  own  children,  and  ever  absolutely  helplessly 
in  His  power. 

And  the  idea  inculcated  by  the  Church  that  the  true 
believers  are  especially  marked  out  by  God  as  the  recipi- 
ents of  His  favors  and  blessings,  while  those  less  favored 
receive  His  frowns  and  curses,  must  arouse  a  personal 
vanity  and  overbearing  pride  that  cannot  but  interfere 
with  our  consideration  and  treatment  of  those  whom  we 
look  upon  as  our  less  fortunate  fellow-men. 

But  I  pause.  If  I  have  shown,  as  I  believe  I  have,  that 
dogmatic  Christianity  tends  to  debase  our  conception  of 
God,  and  to  give  us  false  ideas  of  our  relations  to  our 
surroundings,  then  I  have  done  all  I  wish — I  will  have 
shown  it  to  be  a  bane,  not  a  blessing,  to  man. 

I  have  said  that  I  do  not  oppose  religion  but  only 
ecclesiasticism.  I  may  say  that  I  do  not  oppose  true 
Christianity.     I  make  my  meaning  plainer. 

I  believe  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  did  actually  exist,  and 
did  teach  many  great,  though  not  new,  truths.  I  believe, 
further,  that  many,  if  not  all,  of  those  truths,  though  not 
new  to  the  world,  were  new  to  him,  and  that  they  were 
evolved  out  of  his  own  consciousness  and  thought,  under 
and  through  the  laws  of  God,  and  were  to  him,  and  those 
to  whom  he  spoke,  true  inspirations :  for  I  believe  that 
God  is  truth  ;  and  any  truth— whether  it  first  reach  the 
world  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  or  Pythagoras,  from  Christian, 
Pagan,  or  Infidel — is  an  emanation  from  Him — is  Divine 
Inspiration. 

Hence  his  ethical  teachings,  with  but  few  exceptions,  I 
believe  to   be  right,  and  they,  in  my   opinion,  constitute 


266  AN  INQUIRY  INTO 

true  Christianity.  The  dogmas  and  doctrines  devised  by 
the  Church  to  reconcile  obvious  discrepancies,  and  to  for- 
ward its  own  interests,  I  would  reject,  as  also  such  portions 
of  the  Bible,  whether  in  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament, 
as  are  plainly  repugnant  to  reason. 

For  a  creed,  I  would  offer : 

"  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  maker  of 
heaven  and  earth  ;  and  in  a  life  everlasting." 

For  a  rule  of  conduct : 

"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart 
and  with  all  thy  soul  and  with  all  thy  mind  ;  and  thy 
neighbor  like  thyself." 

And  to  those  who  require  any  outside  sanction  to  cause 
them  to  observe  the  law,  the  teaching  of  nature  that 
every  infraction  of  her  laws,  whether  physical,  mental,  or 
moral,  carries  with  it  fixed  natural  consequences,  in  the 
nature  of  punishment,  because  disagreeable,  certain,  and 
proportionate,  but  not  eternal ;  and  that  man  must  work 
out  his  own  salvation,  and  not  depend  on  the  mediation 
of  others  ;  and  that  instead  of  praying  to  be  saved  on 
account  of  Jesus'  death,  we  had  better  strive  to  win  our 
own  redemption  by  following  the  example  of  his  life. 

In  other  words,  let  men  live  good  moral  lives,  attend- 
ing to  their  plain  duties  here  on  earth,  as  indicated  by  the 
precepts  and  example  of  Jesus  and  dictated  by  a  sound 
philosophy  and  enlightened  conscience,  and  trust  the  rest 
to  God.  This  seems  to  be  the  extent  of  the  knowable. 
As  to  that  which  lies  beyond  this  world  and  this  life,  let 
men  believe  what  they  please,  it  is  but  theory  after  all, 
and  while  we  may,  as  I  do,  try  to  convince  our  fellow- 
men  of  the  truth  or  falsity  of  various  beliefs,  no  one 
should  be  persecuted,  even  to  the  extent  of  being  shunned 
or  reprobated,  because  his  theory  may  differ  from  that 


THE    TRUTH  OF  DOGMATIC  CHRISTIANITY.      267 

generally  accepted  ;  certainly  we  should  not  try  to  force 
him  to  adopt  our  belief  in  matters  of  mere  faith,  under 
the  threat  that  if  he  does  not  conform  to  our  views  we 
will  not  only  not  aid  him  to  get  to  heaven,  but  will  do  all 
we  can  to  send  him  to  hell,  by  cutting  him  off  from  our 
Church  fellowship  and  our  social  influence. 

Such  is  my  creed  ;  and  though  much  of  it  depends  on 
faith,  it  is  that  nobler,  truer  faith  of  which  I  have  so 
often  spoken,  and  none  of  it  seems  to  me  to  be  repug- 
nant to  reason  ;  still  I  do  not  think  it  an  essential  to  sal- 
vation that  even  my  creed  should  be  believed,  for  much 
of  it  is  deduction  only,  and  though  I  think  mine  are  more 
logical  and  reasonable  than  the  deductions  drawn  by  the 
Church,  they  are  deductions  still ;  and  no  belief  in  any 
doctrine  or  dogma,  which  is  a  deduction,  no  matter  how 
clear,  should  or  can  be  an  essential  to  salvation,  because 
what  is  perfectly  clear  to  one  is  by  no  means  clear  to  an- 
other, and  the  condemnation  for  disbelief  would  be  for 
having  either  too  much,  or  too  little,  brains  to  believe  it  ; 
and  in  either  case  the  sentence  would  be  equally  unjust, 
being  an  endless  spiritual  doom  for  a  temporary  physical 
defeat. 

I  believe  the  ideas  advanced  by  me,  and,  as  I  think, 
unsuccessfully  controverted  by  my  opponent,  lead  to  a 
peace  of  mind,  a  fulness  of  faith,  and  a  consciousness  of 
truth,  unknown  to  the  orthodox  ;  we  do  not  have  to  try 
to  become  as  little  children — to  pray  for  imbecility — lest 
we  may  not  be  able  to  avoid  seeing  the  errors  of  our 
creed  ;  and  when  we  say,  "  Lord,  we  believe,"  we  are  not 
obliged  to  add,  "  help  Thou  mine  unbelief,"  for  our 
belief  comes  from  the  head  as  well  as  the  heart,  and  is 
mental  conviction,  not  mere  acceptance.     And  they  cer- 


268  DOGMATIC   CHRISTIANITY. 

tainly  tend  to  elevate  our  ideas  of  our  duty  to  ourselves 
and  others,  and  to  raise  our  conception  of  God  from  that 
of  a  changeable,  uncertain,  rather  bungling,  personal  in- 
terferer  in  our  affairs,  to  that  of  an  all-pervading,  living, 
unchanging,  perfect  God,  ruling  by  fixed  and  immutable 
laws,  and  those  laws  Evolution,  Progress,  Compensation, 
Love. 

Surely  the  changed  conception  cannot  be  regretted 
even  if  to  bring  it  about  we  have  to  differ  in  our  theo- 
logical views  from  the  pioneer  thinkers  of  an  infant 
world.  God's  children,  the  sons  of  Earth,  have  pro- 
gressed in  knowledge,  in  accordance  with  His  laws,  in 
everything  pertaining  to  their  physical  nature  ;  shall  we 
believe  that  physical  progress  alone  is  possible?  That 
the  Spiritual,  which  if  it  exists  at  all,  being  eternal,  must 
be  the  Real,  alone  is  cut  off  from  God's  great  law  of 
growth  ?  Rather  would  I  believe,  as  I  do,  that  the  more 
important  the  faculty,  the  greater  the  capacity  for  pro- 
gress, and  that  in  the  spiritual  as  well  as  in  the  physical 
world  the  mistakes  of  the  past  are  the  stepping-stones  to 
the  truths  of  the  future  ;  and  that  spiritual  truths  will 
always  be  provided  for  the  yearning  human  soul  which 
shall  thereby  continue  to  grow  and  progress  higher  and 
higher,  purer  and  purer,  wiser  and  wiser,  happier  and 
happier,  here  and  hereafter,  through  all  time  and  eternity. 

THE   END. 


Date  Due 

— 

r        | 



1 

J 

-'— -F^ 

<f) 

1 

m^N.nJ,h,e.°,l.<?9.'cal  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01007  1571 


